MoversGrethos↓351Majdi↓264Abhi | AP Collective↓254Meiv↓242Ethos↑227Tradeclioagent.eth↑12.1%Hyperliquid↑40.4%Pump.fun↓5.5%kimchi↓18.0%VouchesAndrewD400 WHUF → 一川drive 🔴Arce135 WHUF → Serpin TaxtSamorityanin🧢20 WHUF → STALKER 🐉Samorityanin🧢20 WHUF → ₿ot₿orgReviewskimchinegative · 89 upvoteskimchinegative · 68 upvotesAutistic Intelligence (Reworking Site)positive · 55 upvoteskimchinegative · 55 upvotes
Profile· Reputable@monadOn Ethos
Monad

Monad

1,947 reviews, 67% of them positive.67% positive · 1,947 reviews· Influence factor 293, above 59% of accounts

The record

From 843 activities · Apr 2026

Monad is a high-performance EVM-compatible Layer 1 with impressive technical architecture—parallel execution, 10,000 TPS target, and low latency—that has attracted a passionate community and strong funding. However, the project is deeply polarized: supporters praise the tech, speed, and community bonds formed during testnet, while a substantial portion of the community feels betrayed by the airdrop distribution, which heavily favored influencers and external crypto participants over testnet users who spent months testing and providing feedback. The core tension centers on broken trust—many early supporters view the tokenomics as extractive and the community rewards as unfair, with testnet participants receiving minimal allocation despite their contributions, while others remain bullish on the technical foundation and long-term potential.

“⚖️ “Monad’s Governance: A Visionary Project Held Back by Unfair Group Dynamics””I have been an active participant in the Monad ecosystem since February testing, engaging, and contributing to the community with full dedication. Over the past eight months, I’ve believed in the project’s vision and consistently supported its growth, both technically and socially. However, my experience has been overshadowed by what I can only describe as unfair and biased management within the community. Despite my verified contributions and wallet ranking within the top 300, I was denied the Full Access Discord role even after reaching out to both local Telegram moderators and global community leads. What truly disappointed me was noticing the rise of small internal groups influencing role decisions. I personally witnessed users who joined much later, with minimal on-chain activity, receiving roles within days through these circles. I even recommended Monad to several people early on, only to later see them receive roles quickly while being advised to distance themselves from me to fit in socially within these groups. Experiencing this firsthand was extremely discouraging. It showed how favoritism and clique culture can damage the integrity of a community, no matter how innovative its technology might be. I’ve always believed Monad could be a defining force in Web3, but true decentralization starts with fair recognition of contributors, not selective rewards. When genuine testers and active supporters are left behind, it sends the wrong message to the ecosystem. Monad’s technical foundation remains impressive but the governance and community management urgently need reflection. Real engagement, transparency, and respect for contributors should always come before popularity or personal networks. Because in the end, fairness is what gives a project credibility and this credibility has been deeply shaken.starceps 🚢 · 1298· 12mo ago · negative11
‹ Back1,212 of 1,947 · most upvoted firstMore ›