Original｜Odaily Planet Daily
Author｜jk
On November 27, local time in the U.S., Movement Labs co-founder Rushi Manche passionately spoke on platform X, starting a debate with former Scroll researcher Toghrul Maharramov regarding the listing of Move. Among them, Rushi Manche listed the "seven deadly sins" in Scroll's development, detailing Scroll's shortcomings. This post quickly gained traction in the community.
Odaily Planet Daily has summarized the causes and consequences of this debate for readers as follows:
The incident began on November 25, when Movement Foundation released the token economics for $MOVE and announced that MOVE tokens would be pre-released before the mainnet launch. Movement's reason was: "So, why is $MOVE being launched before the public mainnet of Movement?"
In order to correctly initiate post-confirmation.
Post-confirmation is the mechanism through 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 the public mainnet of Movement, 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: This is because we all know that the token is the final product, not the entire network/chain."
Then, this account separately posted, saying, "Then we came up with an entire narrative about post-confirmation to release tokens before launching the mainnet."
Source: X
This sarcastic post was later replied to by Rushi, who said:
"Yes, it is only allowed when Uniswap and Flashbots do it, because it aligns with Ethereum (by the way, I am a fan of this architecture)."
And the thousands of popular terms we created for those useless EVM L2s are more reasonable.
Then, one of the protagonists of the mudslinging, Toghrul Maharramov, joined in and quickly posted:
"Please list some popular terms created by EVM L2s?"
You responded with "post-confirmation" (which is actually a renaming of 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 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 some minor modifications. Those "useless EVM L2s" created some basic building blocks that everyone is using (for example, Plonky 2 invented by Polygon, general fraud proofs based on Wasm built by Arbitrum, etc.), while you are struggling to add EVM support.
Don't be so self-righteous.
This post seems to have thoroughly angered Rushi, who then replied to Scroll's "seven deadly sins":
"Hey, Toghrul - throughout your entire argument with Franck and Andreas, I tried to remain relatively calm because I want the researchers to argue for themselves (I think that's generally good)." - Note: This refers to Toghrul's previous argument with Movement's researchers about post-confirmation and architecture on platform X.
"Self-righteous?"
Are you kidding?
I have only respect for some members of your team, but Scroll and you might be the worst players in this field (at least 6 of your colleagues—half of whom are no longer here—apologized to me for your behavior).
But let's review what Scroll has done?
For years, it has drained the community and launched a predatory market plan, ultimately dumping on retail users.
The team started selling secondary market tokens years before the launch.
Other team members were forced to buy in at an $18 billion valuation, while the leadership dumped on them.
You have also done airdrops into your own wallets and then sold them.
The most predatory token economics, causing harm to every member of your community.
Nowadays, almost no one is willing to identify as EVM L2 because of what you have done.
It is obvious that you feel bored after delivering the worst product, and your entire community and ecosystem hate it.
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 discuss it in a space with Franck, go ahead.
Otherwise, just improve your own chain properly and don't make it look like an obvious scam.
Then, he followed up with a devastating post:
"A quarter of your team 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 'self-righteous' in front of me, haha." He also attached many examples of Scroll not meeting community expectations, including airdrops into their own wallets or TVL fluctuations.
Under this post, there were both supporters and opponents. Opponents argued that what Rushi discussed had exceeded the scope of technical discussion, stating, "This is a good provocative discussion that allows those who have suffered losses to publicly support you, but you must admit that this is not 'a good faith technical discussion conducted in public.'"
After that, Toghrul himself also replied below, saying: "First, I no longer work at Scroll. Second, you have not refuted any of the points I raised previously (referring to technical points); third, do you really want to discuss operational fraud? (implying that Movement also has similar behaviors)"
Then, he sarcastically stated on his personal homepage, "Bro, I plan to bounce around on platform X and make 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 deadly sins" as follows:
"Draining the community for many years—the mainnet was launched less than a year before the TGE.
Selling on the secondary market for years—any evidence?
To my knowledge, no one was forced to buy. People were given the choice to receive tokens in the final round of valuation.
Airdropping into your own wallets—any evidence? Haichen's wallet was used for testing the chain and was excluded from the airdrop (the team has clarified this).
Possibly the most predatory token economics—this is just one viewpoint.
Well, do you enjoy making misleading statements and then hiding behind your researchers like a coward?
Thus, the debate between the two has come to a temporary halt. As for whose remarks are more advantageous, it depends on the community's opinion—currently, there are obviously more accusations against Scroll on platform X than against Movement.