To me there’s a bunch of red flags, but I can’t put my finger on what I reckon they’re flagging.
Let's start with the fact that the only way to participate currently is to make a "donation" for which you then receive a passphrase which will allegedly give you access once this thing releases. That release presumably depends on them receiving enough of these "donations". They then instruct you to go hype this to your social network, no doubt with the goal of convincing them to donate.
Then once you move past that there's the fact that they're claiming this platform operates on a "custom blockchain". If I'm to take that at face value it means they're spinning up their own chain for which there will be an incredibly limited number of nodes. Even if you have users running their own nodes this is going to result in centralization out of the gate and would only be anywhere near decentralized if enough active users of the network (which isn't out yet) decide to turn into network operators. In other blockchains this is done using economic incentives because running these types of networks is neither financially or technically trivial. This no doubt means there would eventually be a Panquake token. 🥞🚀🌙!!
We've seen this model before and if the network gains any traction it results in a handful of supernodes controlled either by the central entity or a cabal of entities associated with them.
They could have saved themselves a ton of time and engineering hours by docking themselves to Ethereum either as a rollup or even by using existing Layer 2 networks. Then they would have inherited the decentralization and security guarantees that network provides and additionally opened the opportunity to market to the participants of that network.
Then setting all of that aside there is the more obvious question of why a social network needs to be built on a blockchain. What part of an append-only ledger of immutable records aligns with the operational requirements of a social network? The only overlap between the needs of the two is decentralization, but ActivityPub already exists.
Every single part of this looks like people trying to create monetization from a solution that doesn't solve the problem it claims to address, while going about all of it in the worse way possible. And all of that assumes this will ever see the light of day rather than just running off into the sunset with those "donations", which conveniently creates a form of legal protection since you gave that money under the pretense of supporting an effort without a clearly defined expectation of a deliverable.
TLDR: Avoid