Author: Scof, ChainCatcher

Yesterday, the most discussed topic in the crypto industry was undoubtedly the victory achieved by the Movement community in protecting their rights.

According to an official announcement from Binance, Binance has terminated its partnership with the market maker web3port for Movement and has prohibited it from continuing market-making activities on the platform. This market maker sold a large amount of tokens the day after MOVE was launched, causing market volatility and earning approximately 38 million USDT in net profit through this action. To protect user interests, Binance has notified the Movement team and frozen the earnings of this market maker, which are planned to be used for subsequent user compensation.

In response, community members expressed, "As long as the community is united, the torch can illuminate the darkness."

However, despite this rights protection being considered a phased victory, there are still many doubts behind it, and many unsolved mysteries await clarification.

Starting from Community Controversies

Recently, crypto KOL Ice Frog published an article titled "Seven Questions for Movement: In the Face of Facts, Please Respond to Community Concerns," revealing multiple issues within Movement and attracting widespread attention.

According to Rootdata, Movement is a modular framework compatible with Solidity, used to build and deploy infrastructure, applications, etc., based on the Move programming language in any distributed environment.

Initially, the $MOVE token airdrop allocation plan attracted significant community attention, promising to allocate 50%-60% of the tokens to the community. However, in practice, the airdrop window was too short, the distribution ratio was far below expectations, and the rules were complex and opaque, leading to disappointment among many participants.

Data shows that 98.5% of addresses received fewer than 100 tokens, while some addresses received as many as 490,000 tokens, raising community concerns about the fairness of the distribution.

Many believe that the project's airdrop was intended to create a "wealth illusion," profiting from selling after inflating the token price, charging high Gas fees, and even locking up some tokens, resulting in user assets being illiquid. This practice contradicts the original "community first" philosophy and has been criticized as "harvesting retail investors."

In summary, the main issues of community rights protection focus on three points:

1. After the TGE went live, the airdrop window was too short, and the claim link was taken down after the Gas war, preventing most retail investors from claiming the airdrop. The project party relied on fast-track and exchange users to boost reputation and token price, while cashing out through insider trading.
2. The project party repeatedly PUA'd users to wait until the mainnet launch to claim the airdrop while continuing to inflate the token price and cashing out through large OTC sales.
3. Users who cross-chain into the Movement mainnet to claim the airdrop were unable to cross their assets back, leading to asset illiquidity.

A Phased Victory for Community Rights Protection?

After Binance terminated its cooperation with the market maker, the Movement Network Foundation issued a statement indicating that neither the Movement Network Foundation nor Movement Labs were aware of this situation. The reason for choosing to cooperate with this market maker was that they had previously supported projects within the Movement ecosystem. Currently, the foundation has severed all ties with this market maker (including ecosystem partnerships) and has contacted other major exchanges to inform them of the ongoing investigation.

Throughout the incident, the Movement Network Foundation actively cooperated with Binance and committed to using the funds recovered from MM to repurchase $MOVE on the open market.

Still Clouded with Doubts

Despite Binance taking corresponding measures to punish the project party in the Move incident, resulting in a phased victory for the community, the entire event remains shrouded in doubts:

For example, the project experienced a unilateral sell-off of tens of millions of dollars last December; how could Binance, as a trading platform, not have noticed? If it was indeed an operational error, why were necessary corrective measures not taken immediately, and why was it only disclosed four months later?

From another perspective, if the violations were indeed caused by the market maker, why did the project party not take legal action to hold them accountable? If the market maker bore full responsibility, why did it not proactively defend itself or provide relevant explanations? These unresolved questions still require further investigation and urgent transparent responses from both within and outside the industry.

Only when the tide recedes can we see who has been swimming naked.

Although this incident has achieved a phased victory, the underlying questions remain unanswered. Protecting the interests of retail investors and ensuring fairness and transparency in the crypto market have always been two unresolved clouds hanging over Web3. Only by thoroughly uncovering the truth can trust in the market be restored and the ideals of Web3 no longer be mere talk.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。