Original | Odaily Planet Daily
Author | jk
On November 27, U.S. time, Movement Labs co-founder Rushi Manche passionately opened the mic on platform X and started a debate with Scroll's former researcher Toghrul Maharramov regarding the listing of Move. Among them, Rushi Manche listed the 'seven sins' of Scroll development, detailing Scroll's shortcomings. This post quickly gained traction in the community.
Odaily Planet Daily has outlined the background and consequences of this debate for readers as follows:
The incident began on November 25, when Movement Foundation released the token economics for $MOVE, announcing that the MOVE token would be pre-released before the mainnet launch. The reason given by Movement was: 'So, why is $MOVE launched before the Movement public mainnet?'
In order to correctly initiate post-confirmation.
Post-confirmation is the mechanism by which Movement achieves Finality, which can be completed in as little as one second (or shorter).
The post-confirmation of Movement requires pre-established economic security.
By establishing economic security through $MOVE (via liquidity deposit contracts) before publicly launching the Movement mainnet, we can begin to refine post-confirmation in a real environment.
And this part is also part of the controversy. An account named @enshringingplebs retweeted a comment saying, 'Summary: It's because we all know the token is the final product, not the entire network/chain.'
Subsequently, this account posted separately, stating, 'Then we created an entire narrative about post-confirmation to launch the token before the mainnet release.'
Source: X
This sarcastic post was then replied to by Movement co-founder Rushi, who said:
"Yes, it's only allowed when Uniswap and Flashbots do it, because it's aligned with Ethereum (by the way, I'm a fan of this architecture).
And the thousands of buzzwords we created for those useless EVM L2s make more sense.
Subsequently, one of the main characters of the mudslinging, Toghrul Maharramov, joined in and quickly posted:
"Please list the buzzwords created by EVM L2?
You responded with 'post-confirmation' (which is just a renamed pre-confirmation) to the previously mocked 'Fast Finality Rollup' construct. You can't even agree whether you are optimistic rollup or sidechain (these two constructs are mutually exclusive).
I exposed your lies in a group discussion, and the best argument you could come up with was '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 essential building blocks that everyone is using (like Plonky2 invented by Polygon, general fraud proofs based on Wasm built by Arbitrum, etc.), while you struggle to add EVM support.
Don't be so self-righteous.
This post seems to have completely infuriated Rushi, who then replied to Scroll's 'seven sins':
"Hey, Toghrul - throughout your entire argument with Franck and Andreas, I tried to remain relatively calm because I would let the researchers argue it out themselves (I think this is generally a good thing). - Note: Referring to Toghrul's previous arguments with Movement's researchers about post-confirmation and architecture on platform X.
"Self-righteous?"
Are you kidding me?
I have only respect for some members of your team, but Scroll and you may be the worst players in this field (at least 6 of your colleagues — half of whom are no longer here — have apologized to me for your actions).
But let's review what Scroll has done?
For many years, extracting from the community, launching a predatory market plan, resulting in a sale 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 have also airdropped to your own wallets and then sold off.
The most predatory token economics, harming every member of your community.
Nowadays, almost no one is willing to identify themselves as EVM L2 because of your actions.
It's obvious that you feel bored after delivering the worst product, and your entire community and ecosystem hate this.
I will not comment on technical issues, as researchers should discuss them themselves.
You have been attacking me for months, while I have remained silent and respectful.
Technical debates are one thing, and I believe we can improve — but this has crossed the line. If you want to have a discussion in a space with Franck, feel free.
Otherwise, just improve your own chain and don't make it look like an obvious scam.
Then he 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 there, so I feel sorry, but don't use the term 'self-righteous' in front of me, haha." And it was accompanied by many examples of Scroll not meeting community expectations, including airdrops to their own wallets or TVL fluctuations.
Under this post, there are both supporters and opponents. The opposing voices believe that what Rushi discussed has exceeded the realm of technical discussion, arguing that 'This is a great provocative discussion that can lead those who have suffered to publicly support you, but you must admit that this is not a 'good-faith technical discussion in public.'
Later, Toghrul himself replied below, saying, 'First, I no longer work at Scroll. Second, nothing you said counters my previous arguments (referring to technical arguments); third, do you really want to discuss operational aspects related to scams? (implying Movement has similar behaviors)'
Later, he sarcastically said on his personal homepage, 'Bro, I'm going to jump around in front of reporters on platform X, spreading misleading statements, but I don't intend to discuss technical issues with you.'
Among them, Toghrul also responded to Rushi's accusations of the 'seven sins' as follows:
"Extracting from the community for many years — the mainnet was launched less than a year before TGE.
Selling on the secondary market 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.
Airdropped to your own wallet — any evidence? Haichen's wallet was used for the test chain, and his wallet was excluded from the airdrop (the team has clarified this).
Probably the most predatory token economics — this is just a viewpoint.
Well, do you enjoy making misleading statements and then hiding behind your researchers like a coward?
Thus, the debate between the two comes to a temporary pause. As for whose arguments are more convincing, it depends on the community's opinion — currently, there are clearly more people blaming Scroll on platform X than blaming Movement.