Original｜Odaily Planet Daily
Author: jk
On November 27, local time in the United States, Rushi Manche, co-founder of Movement Labs, passionately opened the microphone on the X platform and started a debate with Toghrul Maharramov, a former researcher of Scroll, on the issue of Moves listing on X. Among them, Rushi Manche listed the seven sins in the development of Scroll and enumerated Scrolls shortcomings. This post quickly gained popularity in the community.
Odaily Planet Daily sorted out the causes and consequences of this debate for readers as follows:
The cause of the incident was that on November 25, the Movement Foundation released the token economics of $MOVE and announced that the MOVE token would be pre-released before the mainnet launch. The reason given by Movement was this: “So, why is $MOVE launched before the Movement public mainnet?
In order to correctly start postconfirmation.
Post-confirmation is the mechanism by which Movement achieves Finality, and can be completed in as little as one second (or less).
Post-confirmation of Movement requires pre-established economic security.
By establishing economic security with $MOVE (via the Liquid Deposit Contract) before Movement launches on mainnet, we can begin perfecting post-confirmation in a live environment.
This part is also the part that has caused controversy. An account named @enshringingplebs reposted the comment, saying, Summary: This is because we all know that the token is the final product, not the entire network/chain.
The account later made a separate post saying, “Then we created this whole post-confirmation story to release tokens before mainnet.”
Source: X
This sarcastic post was later responded to by Movement co-founder Rushi, who said:
“Yeah, that’s only allowed if Uniswap and Flashbots do it, because that aligns with Ethereum (which I’m a fan of by the way).
And those thousand buzzwords we coined for those useless EVM L2s make much more sense.
Then, one of the protagonists of the war of words, Toghrul Maharramov, joined in and posted a post:
“Please name some buzzwords coined by EVM L2?
You responded to the previously mocked “Fast Finality Rollup” construct with “post-confirmation” (actually renamed pre-confirmation). You can’t even agree on whether you are optimistic rollup or sidechain (these two constructs are mutually exclusive).
I called your lies out in a panel discussion and the best excuse you could give was no one uses them so they cant be number one (???).
Your entire codebase was forked from Aptos with only minor modifications. Those useless EVM L2s created some basic building blocks that everyone is using (such as Plonky 2 invented by Polygon, universal fraud proofs built on Wasm by Arbitrum, etc.), while you struggled to add EVM support.
Get off your high horse.
This post seemed to completely infuriate Rushi, who then responded to Scrolls Seven Deadly Sins:
“Hey Toghrul - I tried to stay relatively calm during this whole argument between you and Franck and Andreas, because I let the researchers debate among themselves (which I think is generally a good thing). -Note: This refers to Toghrul’s previous argument with the Movement researchers about post-confirmation and architecture etc on the X platform
opinionated?
Are you kidding?
I have nothing but respect for some of the members of your team, but Scroll and you are probably the worst characters in this field (even had at least 6 of your colleagues - half of whom are no longer here - come to me to apologize for your behavior).
But let’s review what Scroll does?
After years of milking the community, it launched a predatory marketing scheme and ended up dumping on retail users.
The team started selling tokens on the secondary market years before launch.
The rest of the team was forced to buy in at a $1.8 billion valuation while leadership sold on them.
You also did things like airdropping into your own wallets and then selling them.
The most predatory token economics, where every member of your community suffers.
Today, almost no one is willing to identify themselves as EVM L2 because of what you have done.
Its obvious that you guys are bored after shipping the worst product ever and your entire community and ecosystem is hating on you.
I will not comment on technical issues as researchers should discuss them themselves.
You have been attacking me for months and I have remained silent and respectful.
Technical debates are one thing, and I’m sure we can improve on that — but this is crossing a line. If you want to join Franck in a space, go ahead.
Otherwise improve your chain so it doesn’t look like an obvious scam.”
Then, he followed up with another murderous post:
“A quarter of your team applied for jobs with us in the last two months. There are a lot of great people there that I like, so I feel bad for that, but don’t use the word ‘self-righteous’ in front of me, haha.” And attached below were many examples of Scroll’s actions that did not meet community expectations, including airdrops to its own wallets or TVL fluctuations.
Under this post, some people agree and some disagree. The opposing voice believes that what Rushi discussed has gone beyond the scope of technical discussion, and believes that this is a good inflammatory discussion that can make those who have suffered losses publicly support you, but you must admit that this is not a goodwill technical discussion in public.
Later, Toghrul himself responded below: First, I no longer work at Scroll. Second, nothing you said refutes the arguments I made before (referring to technical arguments); third, do you really want to discuss the actual operations related to the scam? (meaning that Movement also has similar behavior)
Later, he sarcastically said on his personal homepage, Brother, I plan to jump around in front of X platform and reporters and make misleading remarks, but I dont plan to discuss technical issues with you.
Among them, Toghrul also responded to Rushis seven sins accusation as follows:
“Squeezed the community for years — the mainnet launched less than a year before the TGE.
Selling on the secondary market over the years – any evidence?
As far as I know, no one was forced to buy. People were offered the option to receive tokens at the last valuation round.
Airdrop to your own wallet — any proof? Haichen’s wallet was used for the test chain, and his wallet was excluded from the airdrop (the team explained this).
Probably the most predatory token economics out there — that’s just an opinion.
Well, are you happy to make misleading statements and then hide behind your researchers like a coward?
At this point, the argument between the two came to an end. As for which of the two opinions has the upper hand, it depends on the opinion of the community - at present, there are obviously more people on the X platform accusing Scroll than those accusing Movement.
