The Ethereum ecosystem has just welcomed a reversal in recent days, but the Ethereum community is not calm. Former Scroll team members and Movement co-founders, who just completed the testnet and announced airdrop, have gotten into a dispute. Scroll accuses Movement of code plagiarism, while Movement claims Scroll's team behavior is inappropriate, single-handedly damaging the reputation of the Layer 2 ecosystem. Currently, the official members of the Scroll team have not formally responded.
Why is there a direct confrontation?
The spark for the argument occurred in someone else's comment section. @enshriningplebs posted, "We invented the concept of 'postconfirmations' to issue our tokens before the mainnet launch." @seunlanlege sarcastically replied, "Oh, so it's cool only if researchers from the Ethereum Foundation invent some objectively meaningless garbage protocol? Talk about double standards."
Movement Labs co-founder Rushi Manche then added, "That's right, only Uniswap and Flashbots are allowed to do this because they align with Ethereum's interests (by the way, I really like their architecture). As for the thousands of popular terms we've created for those useless EVM L2, that's much more moral."
Then, former Scroll team member Toghrul directly retorted to Rushi's ironic comments, saying, "Stop pretending to be so high and mighty, okay?"
Let's talk about those popular terms created by EVM L2? He believes that the new term 'postconfirmations' is essentially just a rebranding of 'preconfirmations,' and this rebranding came about because they were ridiculed for calling themselves 'fast finality Rollup.' Even more ridiculous is that they themselves don't even understand whether it's optimistic Rollup or a sidechain; these two architectures are inherently contradictory.
Toghrul mentioned that he bluntly raised these issues in the group discussion, but the response was, "No one uses them, so they can't be considered original," which left him puzzled. He also stated that Movement's entire codebase is almost a fork from Aptos, with only minimal changes. In contrast, those so-called 'useless EVM L2' have developed many widely-used core technologies, such as Polygon's invention of Plonky2 and Arbitrum's general fraud proof based on Wasm, while Movement can't even figure out basic EVM support.
Rushi also showed no mercy, directly stating, "High and mighty? Are you kidding me?" Then he began to list Scroll's offenses one by one.
1. After years of leveraging the community, you launched a predatory incentive plan that ultimately shifted the burden onto ordinary investors.
2. The team has been selling secondary market shares for several years before the launch.
3. Other members of the team were forced to buy in at an $1.8 billion valuation, while senior leadership sold off at the same time.
4. You even directly allocated airdrops to your own wallets for cashing out.
5. Designed the most predatory token economic model aimed at harming every community member.
To directly express Rushi's anger, here is his original content for readers to feel:
Today, because of your actions, almost no one wants to identify as EVM L2 anymore. You delivered the worst product, and the entire community and ecosystem are filled with resentment towards you. Clearly, you are now at a loss. I won't comment on technical matters; that should be addressed by researchers. You have 'pursued' me for several months, while I have remained quiet and respectful. Technical debates are one thing, and I believe we can improve, but you have crossed the line. If you want to debate with Franck on Spaces, go ahead. Otherwise, please improve your own chain and stop making it look like a complete scam.
He added, "I have respect for some members of your team, but Scroll and you can be considered one of the worst participants in this field (at least 6 of your colleagues—half of whom have left—came to apologize to me for your actions)."
In the past two months, a quarter of your team has applied for our positions. There are many people I really like over there, so I feel a bit guilty, but please don't put on that high and mighty attitude with me, haha.
Lastly, Rushi ended with, "I'm actively searching for 'Scroll scam' and learning more. @toghrulmaharram don't think about causing me trouble, haha."
The rise and fall of the Scroll controversy.
Earlier this year, Starknet sparked outrage over the term 'electronic beggar,' and coincidentally, Scroll made the same mistake when its senior researcher Toghrul Maharramov directly referred to users as 'electronic beggars' during a confrontation, even using fxxk-like malicious vocabulary while mocking users trying to gain airdrops.
On September 15, the Trump family-backed crypto project World Liberty Financial announced that Scroll co-founder Sandy Peng would become an advisor to the project, which the community regarded as an example of the Scroll team's ability to maintain circle relationships.
In October, Scroll became the first pre-market trading project on Binance and announced its token economics. However, this news raised doubts in the community, accusing Scroll of having airdrop quotas that are too low while Binance Launchpool's quotas are disproportionately high, clearly showing favoritism towards Binance.
From the data, the total supply of SCR is 1 billion, with an initial circulation of only 190 million, accounting for 19% of the total. In the token distribution, airdrops account for only 15%, while ecosystem and growth account for 35%, and the Scroll DAO treasury accounts for 10%.
Even the 15% airdrop has only 2% circulating at TGE, with the remaining part gradually unlocking over four years. In contrast, Binance Launchpool allocated 5.5%, with this part's TGE circulation ratio reaching 2.5%, and the remaining 17% also unlocking over four years. This design makes Launchpool's initial circulation ratio much higher than the community airdrop.
Furthermore, the Scroll foundation holds 10%, core contributors hold 23%, and investors hold 17%. The tokens of core contributors and investors only begin unlocking a year after TGE, but the ecosystem, Launchpool, and Scroll foundation occupy a large proportion in the initial circulation. This distribution mechanism amplifies the token holding weight of Binance and large institutions while significantly compressing the community's interests, deepening the community's doubts about Scroll's token economics design.
The community used candlestick charts to show Scroll what it means to be unique, and even Scroll's project logo was mocked by the community.
Scroll is very adept at upward management, but community management seems overwhelmed. After the dispute between former team members and Rushi broke out, Movement clearly holds the upper hand in public opinion from the community's perspective.
What does the community think?
Movement ecosystem DEX WarpGate founder Leo Wong stated that Toghrul's initiated attacks not only lack technical basis but are also filled with malice. He accused Scroll of predatory behavior while criticizing Movement's terminology or architecture: internal selling, exploitative token economic model, and community farming done with false promises. These actions not only tarnished Scroll's reputation but also sullied the ideals of a fair blockchain ecosystem.
If Scroll really has technical criticisms, please have your researchers and engineers present them respectfully. Resorting to personal attacks and public smearing only highlights your lack of confidence in your own platform and practices. The blockchain industry relies on cooperation, transparency, and trust, rather than this petty retaliatory behavior.
Developer Andrew Capasso stated that Toghrul's transformation of Scroll's criticisms into personal attacks is actually an evasion of responsibility for the collective behavior of the team. He believes Toghrul is still entangled in the minutiae of words and fails to realize that the real issue is Scroll's deliberate moral damage to the community.
This, whether you like it or not, undermines your credibility. Responsibility and integrity are more important than technical details; you are not a low-profile developer but one of their strongest PR warriors. Keep being stubborn, and the Scroll logo will be forever branded on you, haha.
KOL Crypto Veto expressed, "I'm not judging right or wrong, but there are some takeaways from these two dialogues that I think everyone needs to know."
1. The 'halal era' of raising valuations and securing funds solely through ideological alignment is over.
2. Please spend money on those who truly know how to do PR with the retail community; those who don't know how to talk can keep quiet.
3. As a project team in the crypto circle, you are wrong; retail investors are right. Don't compete with retail investors on investment research capabilities.
4. It's best to consider yourself a retail investor too; spend some time playing with the things they love the most.
5. Brainwash VCs, not yourself.
Some also told Rushi that this is completely malicious debate, saying, 'Toghrul's technical comments have nothing to do with Scroll's poor community management. This is a great mobilization for those who were once victims to publicly support you, but you must recognize that this is not a 'good-natured public technical discussion.'
However, Rushi believes that his response post has nothing to do with technical issues; he merely points out that Toghrul's attitude towards him and the Movement team is filled with malice and insult. 'I had remained silent before because I could handle it myself, but I will not tolerate any insults and harm towards my team.'
