Believe

373 reviews, 24% of them positive.24% positive · 373 reviews· Influence factor 95, above 19% of accounts

The record

From 125 activities · Apr 2026

Believe is a Solana launchpad platform founded by Ben Pasternak that has faced overwhelming criticism for broken promises, locked funds, and repeated token migrations. Users report scam-like behavior including rug pulls, supply manipulation, poor support, unresponsive teams, and failed product delivery—with particular concerns about the chaotic $LAUNCHCOIN to $BELIEVE migration involving admitted 'math errors' and the project's history as a rebranded version of the failed Clout token. While a small number of supporters praise its innovation in lowering barriers to token launches, the dominant sentiment reflects distrust, financial losses, and accusations of deliberate extraction tactics.

What people say

Received · 373 Given · 0

“unbelievable”Vì tin tưởng nền tảng Ethos nên 1 dự án có điểm đã thấp hơn cả quần đùi thế này thì đơn giản là không thể tin nổi. Simple lol

Guts.Btc · 1231· 5mo ago · negative12

“Believe.app - When Every Tweet Can Become a Manipulated Coin”What the heck is this? Honestly, when I first heard about Believe.app, I thought it was just another gimmick. Seriously, creating tokens directly from Twitter? Sounds like a meme. But then I started digging deeper and realized that these guys did something truly crazy. Imagine this: you reply to a tweet, and BAM - you have your own token on Solana. No wallets, no understanding of the blockchain, no technical fuss. Just write a comment and get a coin that others can buy and sell. The numbers will make your head spin When I saw the stats, I didn't believe it at first. LAUNCHCOIN (their main token) soared 900% in a day. And then it continued to grow and eventually showed growth of 27,000%. Yes, you read that right - twenty-seven THOUSAND percent. Ben Pasternak, who came up with all this, saw his LaunchCoin grow to a market cap of $200 million. This same guy used to make Clout.me, which didn't really take off, and then suddenly it became such a success. Sometimes in crypto, timing and luck decide everything. The platform generated $6.3 million in revenue in one day. That's more than many startups earn in a year. How it works (and why it's brilliant) The whole trick is in simplicity. They took Solana (a fast, cheap blockchain) and made it accessible to ordinary people. No need to understand DeFi, no need to pay fees, no need to even know what a private key is. Go to Twitter, reply to a post, get a token. If you want to sell, you sell. If you want to buy someone else's, you buy. Everything happens in a couple of clicks. This solves the main problem of crypto - it's too complicated for ordinary people. Most of my friends are afraid to even install MetaMask, but here you can trade without leaving Twitter. The ecosystem is growing by leaps and bounds A whole industry has grown around Believe.app. There are websites for tracking all the tokens, analysts write reviews, traders have created Telegram channels for signals. This is no longer just a tool - it is a whole economy. And it is growing very quickly, which shows the real demand for such a product. And now about what worries me Not everything is as rosy as it may seem. Yes, the idea is cool, yes, it works, but there are several serious problems. Firstly, the volatility is just wild. Most tokens rise and fall in a matter of hours. It looks more like a casino than an investment. Secondly, manipulations are at every step. Since anyone can create a token, a whole industry of cheating has appeared. You create a token, negotiate with friends or buy bots so that they "believe" in your project and pump up the price. Then you drain everything and disappear. I myself have seen how these schemes work. Telegram channels openly sell "faith boosting" - for $200 you will be provided with 1000 "believers" in your token. The appearance of organic growth is created, but in reality it is pure pump and dump. What is especially dangerous is that ordinary people do not understand these mechanisms. They see that the token is growing, think that this is real interest, buy at the peak, and then are left with paper. Thirdly, the activity has already begun to decline. The hype passes, but what next? Will they be able to retain users when the novelty wears off? Fourthly, regulators will sooner or later pay attention. When millions of people start creating tokens through social networks, the SEC and other agencies will not stand aside. My personal opinion I tried the platform myself. I created a token for my favorite pizzeria in the area - it took a minute. Friends bought a little for fun. Then the price dropped to zero, and we all laughed. But then I decided to experiment more seriously. I followed several "successful" tokens and noticed strange patterns. The price soars, then falls just as sharply. The activity in the comments looks unnatural - a lot of the same type of messages from accounts with suspicious names. Once I even came across such a scheme. I saw a token that was growing for the third day in a row, I thought it was organic growth. I bought it for $100, an hour later the price fell by 80%. It turned out that several large holders had merged their positions in a coordinated manner. The most offensive thing is that the Believe.app administration pretends not to notice these manipulations. It is clear why - they receive a commission from each transaction, it is beneficial for them to have the maximum number of trades, even if half of them are fake. But I understood the main thing - it really works and is really simple. I have never seen such simplicity in crypto. On the other hand, 95% of the tokens there are just garbage or fraudulent schemes. People create coins for the sake of a meme, without any value, and then try to deceive others. What will happen next? Honestly, who the hell knows. In crypto, it’s already hard to predict anything a month in advance, and here’s such an experimental thing. Maybe they’ll find a way to make tokens more useful, and not just speculative assets. Maybe regulators will shut down the whole party. Maybe a competitor will appear and lure all the users. So far, this is the most interesting experiment in crypto since the advent of NFT. But remember - it’s still an experiment. Is it worth trying?

PuncastL @Zetarium ⛽ $XAGE · 1184· 1y ago · negative12

“rebrand hype, rug reality”believe started as clout, now just same old tricks in fresh wrapper. team promises big but delivers zero — rug pulls, broken payouts, ghosted support, and fees that bleed creators dry. tokens dump fast, devs ghost harder. it’s less web3, more meme coin casino gone wrong. if you wanna gamble on hype and lose trust, here’s your place. avoid if you care about real product or community. all clout, no delivery, pure rug vibes

🌙 danmax.eth π² 🌶️ · 1293· 1y ago · negative12

“Lack of transparency on liquidity”There have been repeated complaints about slow withdrawals with no clear explanation. This raises concerns about how the funds are managed. In web3, transparency is key, and they’re losing that edge.

SomniaPioneer | S O M D U D U · 1218· 1y ago · negative12

““A Good cl writer””always dropping good article that has been benefitting. also a good threadoor

playboi👻 · 1239· 1y ago12

“Believe? More Like Beware.”Believe sounds exciting at first, turning attention into capital and letting anyone launch a project. But when you look closer, there are serious issues. First, the legal side is a mess. They say they can’t give legal advice and leave creators to figure it out themselves. That’s risky, especially when tokens can get people into legal trouble fast. Second, the fee system is unclear. Believe takes 30% of the fees, but it’s not clear what they actually do to earn that. The whole system seems built more on hype than real value. They focus more on making a flashy launch (videos, tagging, promoting on X) than on building real projects. There’s nothing in place to protect buyers if a creator disappears or gives up. In the end, Believe feels more like a platform for short-term attention than long-term success. Without clear rules, real product focus, or buyer protections, it's hard to trust — and easy to see how people could get burned.

ilias · 1392· 1y ago · negative12

“Decentralisation is good but too much of it breeds bad behaviour”As we've seen with easy use products, allowing such ease with creating an extractive finance tool such as memecoins could prove fatal for developing Web3 trust this hindering adoption rather than promoting it.

RestlessHavoc · 1275· 1y ago · negative12

“Another disappointing project”Believe is the perfect example of why trusting projects is like dating a liar, you’ll end up broke and emotionally drained. They promised the world and delivered a flat tire. I gave Believe a shot, thinking I was stepping into something groundbreaking, but I quickly learned I have been sold a fairytale. Disappointment isn’t even the half of it; this project has left me feeling more betrayed than I ever thought possible. I should have trusted my gut, but instead, I bought into the hype. Lesson learned, so i am warning others to stay away from bad projects like this.

TeeDosh 💎 · 1280· 8mo ago · negative15

“Đừng đưa tiền cho Pasternak nữa.”Believe không mang lại cho bạn quyền sở hữu trong một doanh nghiệp... nó đang ngụy trang thành một phiên bản Echo không được quản lý... ngoại trừ việc bạn không có bất kỳ cổ phần nào trong doanh nghiệp.

WHORANGE · 1276· 1y ago · negative15

“I'm skeptical of myself”This thing got rebranded from what Pasternak launched before. He's trying again, but a lot of people lost trust in him after his last project. Right now, they're just launching coins through Twitter. And I don't like that they're teaming up with those web2 companies. It's starting to make regular investors think this is a way to invest in web2 startups, like some kind of "internet stock market." That's the wrong idea. Coins like the memecoins or attention coins they're making should only be related to memes. That's the whole deal.

Bryant·黄先森 · 1310· 1y ago · negative15

“p"rojects that have a negative impact on society"”that have a negative impact on society often overlook long-term consequences in favor of short-term gains. they may exploit user data, spread misinformation, reinforce inequality, or prioritize profit over well-being. while they can grow quickly, the damage they create usually surfaces later through loss of trust, social harm, or regulatory pushback. what makes these projects especially harmful is scale. when technology reaches millions, small design choices can amplify negative behavior or normalize unhealthy practices. lack of transparency, weak accountability, and ignoring community feedback often worsen the impact. over time, society tends to push back. users disengage, communities fragment, and credibility erodes. this is why responsible projects increasingly focus on ethics, transparency, and social value, recognizing that sustainable innovation must benefit people, not undermine them

Wahyu yoga · 1224· 10mo ago · negative14

“failed extraction platform with zero clarity”used it early and instantly regretted. nothing worked right, support was just vibes, and every feature felt rushed or broken. they kept tweeting like everything's booming while users were stuck or rugged. total mess of a platform. wouldn't touch again

Hoseinshirkhani · 1266· 1y ago · negative14

‹ Back132 of 373 · most upvoted firstMore ›