"Scammers"
The review contains a lot of concrete details about the user's experience - waiting 2 years, having money stuck, accumulating points, the pre-sale price being higher than the TGE, and only the team's "freeloaders" being eligible. These are specific examples that could help ground the criticism.
However, the review also includes very strong emotional language like "crappy network", "crappy project", and saying it "will die and disappear". This level of raw negativity and insults ("freeloaders") weakens the overall message.
Suggested response:
Header: Disappointment, but stay factual
Body: It's clear this project let you down after years of effort and loyalty. The specifics you mention - the long wait, the liquidity you provided, and the unfair eligibility criteria - are valid criticisms. To make this review more impactful, I'd suggest focusing on those concrete issues and consequences, without the personal insults. Factual, rational criticism carries more weight than emotional attacks. If you reframe it as "the rewards didn't match the work required" instead of "scammers", your message will resonate better and be harder to dismiss. The core of your experience deserves to be heard.
The key here is to acknowledge the user's valid frustration, extract the core factual issues, and suggest reframing the review in a less insulting way that maintains the substance. The goal is to preserve the critical feedback while elevating the overall tone and credibility.
š Original review: https://app.ethos.network/activity/review/563884
