The era of 'halal' where one could raise valuations and secure funding solely by aligning with a certain ideology is over.
Written by: shushu
The Ethereum ecosystem has just welcomed a reversal in recent days, but it is not peaceful in the Ethereum community. Former team members of the zkRollup project Scroll have quarreled with the co-founder of Movement, who just finished the testnet and announced an airdrop. Scroll accused Movement of code plagiarism, while Movement claimed that Scroll's team behavior was improper, single-handedly damaging the reputation of the Layer 2 ecosystem. Currently, there has been no formal response from the official members of the Scroll team.
Why is there a direct confrontation?
The spark of the argument occurred in someone else's comment section. @enshriningplebs said, "We invented the concept of 'postconfirmations' to issue our tokens before the mainnet launch." @seunlanlege mockingly replied, "Oh, so only Ethereum Foundation researchers invent objectively meaningless garbage protocols, right? What a double standard."
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 L2s, they are much more moral."
Then, Scroll's former team member Toghrul directly retorted Rushi's ironic comments, saying, "Stop pretending to be high and mighty, okay?"
"Let's talk about those popular terms created by EVM L2?" He believes the new term 'postconfirmations' essentially just renames 'preconfirmations,' and this renaming was done because they were mocked when they called themselves 'fast finality Rollup.' Even more absurdly, they themselves haven't figured out whether it's an optimistic Rollup or a sidechain, as these two architectures are inherently contradictory.
Toghrul mentioned that he pointed out these issues in group discussions, but the response was, "No one uses them, so they can't be considered original," which left him baffled. He also said that the entire codebase of Movement is almost split from Aptos with only minor modifications. In contrast, those so-called 'useless EVM L2' have produced many widely used core technologies, such as Polygon inventing Plonky2 and Arbitrum creating general fraud proofs based on Wasm, while Movement can't even understand EVM support.
Rushi also did not hold back, directly saying, "High and mighty? Are you kidding?" and then began to list Scroll's offenses one by one.
1. Exploited the community for years, yet launched a predatory incentive plan that ultimately shifted the burden onto ordinary investors.
2. The team has been selling secondary market shares for years before the launch.
3. Other team members were forced to buy in at an $18 billion valuation while senior leaders 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 with the aim of 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 is willing to identify as EVM L2. You delivered the worst product, and the entire community and ecosystem are filled with resentment towards you. Now it is clear you are just idly waiting. I won't comment on technical matters; that should be resolved by researchers. You have been relentlessly pursuing 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 overstepped. If you want to debate with Franck on Spaces, go ahead. Otherwise, please improve your own chain and don't make it look like a complete scam anymore."
He also added, "I have respect for some members of your team, but Scroll and you could be considered one of the worst participants in this field (with at least 6 of your colleagues — half of whom have already left — coming 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 there that I really like, so I feel a bit guilty, but please don't use the words 'high and mighty' with me, haha."
Finally, Rushi concluded, "I am actively searching for 'Scroll scam' and learning more about it. @toghrulmaharram, don't think about coming to trouble me, haha."
The evolution of Scroll's controversy
Earlier this year, Starknet sparked outrage with the term 'electronic beggar.' Coincidentally, Scroll made the same mistake when its senior researcher Toghrul Maharramov directly referred to a user as 'electronic beggar' during a 'debate' with them and even used offensive language like fxxk when mocking users for seeking airdrops.
On September 15, the Trump family's crypto project World Liberty Financial announced that Scroll co-founder Sandy Peng would become an advisor for the project, which was seen by the community as an example of the Scroll team's adeptness at maintaining connections.
In October, Scroll became Binance's first pre-trading project and announced its token economics. However, this news sparked skepticism from the community, accusing Scroll of low airdrop quotas and high Binance Launchpool quotas, clearly trying to please 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 token distribution, airdrops account for only 15%, while ecosystem and growth account for 35%, and the Scroll DAO treasury accounts for 10%.
Even for the 15% airdrop, only 2% was circulating at TGE, with the remaining portion to be gradually unlocked over four years. In contrast, Binance Launchpool allocated 5.5%, with a TGE circulation proportion of 2.5%, and the remaining 17% also unlocking over four years; this design makes the initial circulation proportion of Launchpool far exceed that of community airdrops.
Furthermore, the Scroll Foundation accounts for 10%, core contributors 23%, and investors 17%. The tokens of core contributors and investors only start to unlock a year after TGE, but the proportions held by the ecosystem, Launchpool, and the Scroll Foundation in the initial circulation are considerable. This distribution mechanism amplifies the weight of Binance and large institutions' holdings, while the community's interests are significantly compressed, deepening skepticism about Scroll's token economics design.
The community used K-line charts to show Scroll what uniqueness looks like, and even Scroll's project logo was ridiculed by the community.
On one hand, Scroll is very adept at upward management, while on the other hand, community management seems overwhelmed. After the recent argument between former team members and Rushi, Movement obviously holds the upper hand in public opinion.
What does the community think?
Leo Wong, founder of Movement's ecosystem DEX WarpGate, stated that Toghrul's attacks not only lack technical basis but are also filled with malice. He pointed out that Scroll's predatory behavior is evident: internal selling, exploitative token economic models, and community farming based on false promises. These actions not only tarnished Scroll's reputation but also stained the ideals of a fair blockchain ecosystem.
"If there are indeed technical criticisms of Scroll, please have your researchers and engineers present them respectfully. Resorting to personal attacks and public smear campaigns only highlights your lack of confidence in your own platform and practices. The blockchain industry relies on cooperation, transparency, and trust, not petty acts of revenge."
Developer Andrew Capasso stated that Toghrul's reframing of Scroll's criticisms as personal attacks is actually an evasion of responsibility for the team's collective behavior. He believes Toghrul is still entangled in the minutiae of words and hasn't realized the real issue is Scroll's intentional moral harm to the community.
"Whether you like it or not, this undermines your credibility. A sense of responsibility and integrity is more important than technical details; you are not a silent developer but one of their most powerful PR warriors. Keep being stubborn, and Scroll's logo will forever be branded on you, haha."
KOL Crypto Vaidya stated, "I won't comment on right or wrong; there are some takeaways from these two dialogues that I think everyone needs to know."
1. The era of 'halal' where one could raise valuations and secure funding solely by aligning with a certain ideology is over.
2. Please spend money on people who really know how to public relations with retail communities; those who don’t know how to speak should keep quiet.
3. As a project party in the crypto space, you are wrong; the retail investors are right. Don't compete with retail investors on research capabilities.
4. It's best to consider yourself a retail investor and take some time to engage with the things they love most.
5. Brainwash VCs, not yourself.
Some also told Rushi that this is entirely a malicious debate, saying, "Toghrul's technical comments have nothing to do with Scroll's poor community management. This is a great mobilization that allows those who have been victimized to publicly support you, but you must recognize that this is not 'a benevolent public technical discussion.'"
However, Rushi believes that his response post is unrelated to technical issues, merely pointing out Toghrul's malicious and insulting attitude towards him and the Movement team. "I had remained silent because I could handle it myself, but I will not tolerate any insults or harm directed at my team."
