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

“Digital Trace tells all”Even with backing from AllianceDAO, top KOLs, and even Solana official, it’s clear the Clout (now Believe) team can’t deliver. Pasternak launched in January, tanked 90%+, and the roadmap execution has been nonexistent. Supporters left disappointed, and all Clout app tokens ended up being refunded.

0xA645...D3C9 · 1244· 1y ago · negative9

“Clout believe - nothing but disappointment”Even with backing from AllianceDAO, Solana, and top KOLs, the team behind Clout (now Believe) hasn’t shown they can actually build. Their token Pasternak launched in January, pumped for a moment, then dumped over 90%. The roadmap went nowhere, and they even refunded old Clout tokens to buyers – basically admitting failure. The app itself never impressed. I tried it, couldn’t even get things to work, and when I finally managed, the whole concept died after a few days. It was supposed to be a platform for trading celeb tokens, but it vanished as fast as it came. No innovation, no execution, no trust. Just another extraction play that leaves people burned. Best advice: avoid and don’t waste time.

Markkkk · 1289· 1y ago · negative9

“donate your money, get nothing back — believeapp in a nutshell where fees are high, tokens are useless”believeapp feels like a web3 parody — you’re not buying a token, you’re donating. creators barely see the money. fees are insane, nothing’s useful, and it’s all controlled by the team. web3’s supposed to be about ownership — this ain’t it.

glaze · 1330· 1y ago · negative9

“I’m Not Convinced”This is a rebrand of Pasternak’s earlier project, but the trust lost hasn’t been regained. It’s mostly launching coins via Twitter, and I’m not a fan of the involvement with web2 companies. It’s giving retail the wrong impression like this is a new way to invest in web2 startups under the “internet capital markets” banner. Memecoins and attention coins should be tied to memes. That’s the whole point—not startups.

Folabi 🍊,💊 · 1239· 1y ago9

“Cool idea, but not sure I trust it yet”Believe feels like a fun experiment, but it’s hard to take seriously right now. The concept of launching coins from tweets is creative, but without real utility or transparency, it just feels like another hype cycle. The rebrand from Clout also makes me a bit cautious. Still watching, but not buying in just yet.

dream · 1285· 1y ago · negative9

“Leadership and Community Engagement Issues”1. Leadership and Community Engagement IssuesOne of the most prominent criticisms revolves around the leadership of Believe’s founder, Ben Pasternak. Several users on X have expressed frustration with what they perceive as a lack of accountability and engagement from the project’s leadership. For instance, posts on X have called out Pasternak for failing to appear at scheduled community events, such as a planned "space" (a live audio discussion on X). Critics have described these events as poorly organized, lacking structure, and failing to provide meaningful updates or support for legitimate projects. One user labeled the platform a "scam" and criticized the CEO’s absence, stating that it contributed to a sense of abandonment among community members. This has fueled distrust, with some users calling the Believe ecosystem "the worst" they’ve encountered and predicting a decline in the token’s value.These sentiments highlight a perceived lack of transparency and communication from the leadership, which is critical for maintaining trust in a decentralized, community-driven project like Believe. The absence of the CEO in community interactions has been particularly damaging, as it leaves investors and users questioning the project’s commitment to its community.2. Declining Platform Activity and HypeWhile the Believe app initially saw explosive growth, with over 4,000 tokens launched daily at its peak between May 13 and May 15, 2025, activity has significantly declined since then. Reports indicate that token launches dropped to just 268 by May 25, 2025, following the platform’s decision to suspend launches via X and pivot to an API-based model. This sharp decline suggests that the initial viral momentum may have been driven by short-term speculative hype rather than sustainable user engagement. The cooling of activity has raised concerns about the platform’s ability to maintain relevance in the highly competitive Solana launchpad space, where platforms like Pump.fun and LetsBonk continue to dominate. For example, Pump.fun consistently supports 20,000 to 30,000 token launches daily, dwarfing Believe’s numbers. Critics argue that Believe’s reliance on social media-driven token creation may not translate into long-term user retention or platform utility, especially as competing platforms produce more high-performing tokens. 3. Risks of Scams and Low-Quality TokensThe Believe app’s low barrier to entry—allowing anyone to launch a token by replying to an X post with a ticker name—has been both a strength and a significant point of criticism. While this democratizes token creation, it also opens the door to spam, low-effort projects, and potential scams. The platform’s model has been criticized for enabling the creation of thousands of memecoins with little to no intrinsic value, many of which are prone to rug pulls or rapid crashes once initial hype fades. A specific concern is the mutable metadata of tokens launched on Believe. Creators can alter a token’s name, symbol, description, or linked website after launch, which could facilitate deceptive rebrands or scams. This flexibility undermines trust in the platform, as investors may find it difficult to verify the legitimacy of tokens. Community members have flagged this as a significant risk, noting that without robust safeguards, Believe could contribute to a wave of scams in the Solana ecosystem, similar to past incidents with tokens like LIBRA and MELANIA on other platforms. 4. Speculative Nature and VolatilityLAUNCHCOIN’s price volatility is another major point of criticism. Despite its massive rallies (e.g., 3,000% in a week and 27,000% in a month), the token has experienced significant retracements, with reports of a -57.49% decline from its all-time high. Critics argue that the token’s price movements are driven by speculative buzz rather than fundamental value, a common issue with memecoins. The lack of clear utility or long-term use cases for LAUNCHCOIN has led some to predict further declines, with one X user stating they expect the market cap to fall below $30 million. Additionally, the platform’s revenue has dropped sharply, from $14.17 million over seven days to just $340,016 in a single day, compared to competitors like Pump.fun, which maintained $2.5 million in daily revenue. This decline in revenue and token launch activity suggests that LAUNCHCOIN’s price surges may not be sustainable without significant improvements in platform engagement or utility. 5. Technical and Operational IssuesUsers have reported technical issues with the Believe app, particularly around the claiming of fees for token creators. One review on the App Store noted that the fee claim function had been non-functional for days, despite projects generating trading volume. This user expressed frustration at the lack of communication from the Believe team, describing the issue as a “death knell” for the platform’s business model. Such operational hiccups can erode confidence among creators who rely on revenue-sharing as an incentive for launching tokens on Believe. Furthermore, there are concerns about the platform’s ability to handle a high volume of token launch requests via X replies. With over 5,000 replies to Launchcoin’s X posts, there are questions about whether Believe has adequate safeguards to prevent system overload or spam, which could further degrade the user experience. 6. Competition and Market ShareBelieve faces stiff competition from other Solana-based launchpads like Pump.fun and LetsBonk, which have maintained stronger market share and user engagement. For example, on May 17, 2025, Believe’s market share of Solana launchpad token launches dropped to just 2.6%, compared to a high of 13.6% on May 15. Meanwhile, Pump.fun and LetsBonk have consistently produced top-performing tokens, while Believe has struggled to maintain its early success. Critics argue that without unique features or improved vetting processes, Believe risks fading into irrelevance in a crowded market. 7. Community Sentiment and FUDRecent posts on X reflect strong negative sentiment, often referred to as “FUD” (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), within the LAUNCHCOIN community. Users have described the platform as a “disgrace” and estimated that “90% of the app is a scam project.” There is particular frustration over the platform’s failure to list certain projects that reportedly reached significant milestones, such as a $150,000 market cap. This has led to accusations of mismanagement and calls for “capitulation” from vocal critics.The intense community debate, coupled with accusations of scams and poor leadership, has created a polarized environment. While some users remain optimistic about LAUNCHCOIN’s potential, the vocal criticism from detractors is likely contributing to waning confidence among investors.8. Sustainability and Long-Term ViabilityA recurring theme in negative feedback is skepticism about the long-term viability of both LAUNCHCOIN and the Believe platform. The Internet Capital Markets (ICM) narrative, which Believe promotes by allowing anyone to tokenize ideas via social media, has been criticized for its speculative nature and similarities to meme-driven projects. Analysts have warned that without meaningful partnerships, robust use cases, or improved vetting mechanisms, LAUNCHCOIN could face a sharp retracement in value, potentially dropping to support levels like $0.097. The platform’s pivot from its original branding as Clout to Believe, along with the rebranding of PASTERNAK to LAUNCHCOIN, has also raised eyebrows. While the rebrand contributed to a surge in interest, some see it as a superficial move to reignite hype rather than addressing fundamental issues with the platform’s model.

raspon · 1221· 1y ago · negative9

“Registration Error”It gives an error when registering. I wanted to check the app and gave it a negative review because it is currently failing. It looks like an app that will correct itself soon. Godspeed.

MAHE 💎 · 1232· 1y ago · negative9

“Building right, executing poorly. Needs time.”I think Believe is doing something unique and important for this space, but like teams that build in the space, they have struggled and misplaced some steps along the way with many onlookers giving them little patience for misstep. In the long run, I expect the team to get it right and build a project that can last many cycles to come. I'll be on the lookout but for now, but right now I think they are positive for the space unlike many naysayers.

)(. · 1308· 1y ago9

“A Platform Plagued by Distrust and Unfulfilled Promises”Believe, formerly Clout, faces severe backlash due to a history of unfulfilled promises, significant token dumps, and allegations of misleading investors. Despite notable support, the team is widely criticized for a "zero vision" and inability to deliver actual products, leaving users with substantial losses. Many feel the platform misrepresents itself, selling tokens as investment proxies when they're largely volatile memecoins, leading to a deep lack of trust that the rebranding couldn't fix.

Raiman · 1314· 1y ago · negative9

“Rugger Account”Grifts from the community, steals from followers, has launched so many coins you would expect him to be tired of it by now but no, he keeps on doing it

Doorknob.eth · 1237· 1y ago · negative9

“Don't trust”Believe allows anyone to create a token on Solana simply by tweeting a ticker and tagging the Believe handle . There are positive sides to Believe as well, and importantly, it’s still improving. However, if Believe continues to act irresponsibly, I won’t hesitate to share a critical review of the project on the Ethos platform.

Lee · 1180· 1y ago · negative9

“Unclear what the core offering is here”They sold degens the dream of getting into ICO-style launches for next-gen internet startups but there's no paperwork to prove that you're actually getting a piece of company equity It's one thing for people to know they're investing in a worthless speculative token. Just don't be vague about what you're actually selling and tell us to "believe in something" Feels predatory, even for some founders who have felt blindsided with how the ecosystem's leaders keep shifting the goalpost

IB 💸 · 1324· 1y ago · negative9

‹ Back180 of 373 · most upvoted firstMore ›