Original｜Odaily Planet Daily
Author｜jk
On November 27, local time in the United States, Movement Labs co-founder Rushi Manche passionately spoke on the X platform, engaging in a debate with former Scroll researcher Toghrul Maharramov regarding the listing of MOVE tokens. In this discussion, Rushi Manche listed the "seven deadly sins" of Scroll's development, enumerating its shortcomings. This post quickly gained traction in the community.
Odaily Planet Daily summarizes the background and consequences of this debate as follows:
The incident began on November 25, when the Movement Foundation released the tokenomics for $MOVE and announced that the MOVE token would be pre-released before the mainnet launch. Movement provided the following reasoning: “So, why is $MOVE launching before the Movement public mainnet?
To correctly initiate postconfirmation.
Postconfirmation is the mechanism by which Movement achieves Finality, which can be completed in as little as one second (or even shorter).
Movement's postconfirmation requires pre-established economic security.
By establishing economic security through $MOVE (via liquidity deposit contracts) before the Movement public mainnet, we can begin to refine postconfirmation in a real-world environment.
This part also sparked controversy. An account named @enshringingplebs retweeted with a comment saying, “Summary: This is because we all know that tokens are the final product, not the entire network/chain.”
Subsequently, this account posted separately, stating, “Then we created an entire narrative about postconfirmation to release tokens before launching the mainnet.”
Source: X
This sarcastic post was later replied to by Movement co-founder Rushi, who said:
“Yes, it’s only allowed when Uniswap and Flashbots do it, because it aligns with Ethereum (by the way, I’m a fan of this architecture).
And the thousands of buzzwords we created for those useless EVM L2s are more reasonable.”
Then, one of the protagonists of the spat, Toghrul Maharramov, joined in and quickly posted:
“Please list the buzzwords created by EVM L2?
You responded to the previously mocked “Fast Finality Rollup” construct with “postconfirmation” (which is actually a renamed preconfirmation). You can’t even agree on whether you are an optimistic rollup or a sidechain (these two constructs are mutually exclusive).
I exposed your lies in a panel discussion, and the best reason you could come up with is “no one uses them, so they can’t be considered first” (???).
Your entire codebase is forked from Aptos, with only minor modifications. Those “useless EVM L2s” created some fundamental building blocks that everyone is using (like Plonky2 invented by Polygon, and the Wasm-based universal fraud proof built by Arbitrum, etc.), while you struggle with adding EVM support.
Get off your high horse.”
This post seemed to completely infuriate Rushi, who then responded with Scroll's "seven deadly sins":
“Hey, Toghrul - I tried to remain relatively calm throughout your entire argument with Franck and Andreas, as I would let the researchers argue for themselves (I think that’s generally good). - Note: This refers to Toghrul's previous arguments with Movement's researchers about postconfirmation and architecture on the X platform.
“Get off your high horse”?
Are you kidding me?
I have only respect for some members of your team, but Scroll and you might be the worst performers in this field (at least six of your colleagues—half of whom are no longer there—have apologized to me for your behavior).
But let’s review what Scroll has done:
For years, it has exploited the community, launching a predatory market plan that resulted in selling to retail users.
The team started selling secondary market tokens years before the launch.
Other members of the team were forced to buy in at an $18 billion valuation while the leadership sold off on them.
You even did airdrops to your own wallets and then sold them.
The most predatory tokenomics, causing harm to every member of your community.
Today, almost no one is willing to identify as EVM L2 because of what you have done.
It’s clear that you feel bored after delivering the worst product, and your entire community and ecosystem hate it.
I won’t comment on technical issues because researchers should discuss those themselves.
You have been attacking me for months, and I have remained silent and respectful.
Technical debate is one thing, and I believe we can improve—but this has crossed the line. If you want to discuss in a space with Franck, feel free.
Otherwise, focus on improving your own chain and don’t make it look like an obvious scam.”
He then followed up with a devastating post:
“A quarter of your team has applied for our jobs in the past two months.** There are many excellent talents I like, so I feel sorry, but don’t use the term ‘get off your high horse’ in front of me, haha.”** He also attached many examples of Scroll's actions that did not meet community expectations, including airdrops to their own wallets or TVL fluctuations.
Under this post, there were both supporters and detractors. Opponents argued that Rushi's discussion had exceeded the scope of technical discussion, stating that “This is a good provocative discussion that can publicly rally those who have suffered losses to support you, but you must admit this is not ‘a good-faith technical discussion in public.’”
Later, Toghrul himself replied below, saying: “First, I no longer work at Scroll. Second, you haven’t refuted any of the points I previously raised (referring to technical points); third, do you really want to discuss practical matters related to scams? (implying Movement has similar behaviors)”
He then sarcastically stated on his personal page, “Bro, I plan to jump around on the X platform and make misleading statements in front of reporters, but I don’t intend to discuss technical issues with you.”
Toghrul also responded to Rushi's accusations of the "seven deadly sins" as follows:
“Exploiting the community for many years—launched the mainnet less than a year before TGE.
Selling secondary market tokens for years—any evidence?
As far as I know, no one was forced to buy. People were given the option to receive tokens at the last round valuation.
Airdrops to your own wallets—any evidence? Haichen's wallet was used for testing the chain, and his wallet was excluded from the airdrop (the team has clarified this).
Possibly the most predatory tokenomics—this is just a viewpoint.
Well, you are happy to make misleading statements and then hide behind your researchers like a coward?”
At this point, the debate between the two seemed to come to a pause. As for whose arguments hold more weight, it depends on the community's opinion—currently, it appears that there are significantly more accusations against Scroll than against Movement on the X platform.
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。
