The questioning of Movement's "Victory" in rights protection: Binance's late justice and project party's "blame" mystery

Author: Scof, ChainCatcher

Yesterday, the topic that was discussed most frequently in the crypto industry was undoubtedly the victory of the Movement community in protecting rights.

According to Binance's official announcement, Binance has terminated its cooperation with Movement's market maker web3port and banned it from continuing market maker activities on the platform. The market maker sold a large number of tokens the day after MOVE went online, causing market volatility and achieved a net profit of approximately USDT through this behavior. To protect the interests of users, Binance has notified the Movement team and frozen the market maker's revenue, which is planned to be used to compensate users in the future.

Members of the community sighed: "As long as the community is united, the torch can illuminate the darkness."

However, although this protection of rights can be regarded as a phased victory, there are still many doubts behind it, and there are still many unsolved mysteries waiting to be revealed.

Start with community controversy

Recently, Encryption KOL Icefrog released an article titled "Seven Questions about Movement: In the Face of the Facts, please ask the project parties to respond positively to community concerns", revealing many problems in Movement and arousing widespread attention.

According to Rootdata, Movement is a modular framework that is compatible with Solidity and is used to build and deploy infrastructure, applications, etc. based on the Move programming language in any distributed environment.

Initially, the $MOVE token airdrop allocation program attracted a lot of community attention, promising to allocate 50%-60% of the tokens to the community. However, in actual operation, the airdrop window period is too short, the distribution ratio is much lower than expected, and the rules are complex and opaque, which disappoints many participants.

Data shows that 98.5% of the addresses received less than 100 tokens, while some addresses received as much as 490,000, which has aroused the community's doubts about the fairness of distribution.

Many people believe that the airdrop of this project is to create a "illusion of wealth". By raising the price of the coin, selling it out, charging high Gas fees, and even locking some tokens, resulting in the inability to flow user assets. This practice violated the original "community first" concept and was criticized as "harvesting retail investors."

In summary, the main issues of community rights protection are concentrated in three points:

1. After TGE was launched, the airdrop window period was too short. After the Gas war, the link was taken off the line, resulting in most retail investors being unable to receive the airdrop. The project party paid the order through Speedtong and exchange users, boosted the reputation and currency price, and cashed out through rat-deal selling.
2. The project party has repeatedly guided users to wait for the main network to be online before receiving the airdrop. At the same time, it continues to raise the price of the coin and cashes out through large amounts of off-market OTC selling coins.
3. After users cross-chain access to the Movement main network to receive airdrops, they cannot transfer the assets back, resulting in the inability to flow.

A phased victory in community rights protection?

After Binance terminated its cooperation with market makers, the Movement Network Foundation stated that Movement Network Foundation and Movement Labs were unaware of this and chose to cooperate with this market makers because they have supported projects in the Movement ecosystem. Currently, the Foundation has cut off all relations with the market maker (including ecosystem partnerships) and has contacted other major exchanges to inform them of the ongoing investigation.

Throughout the incident, the Movement Network Foundation actively collaborated with Binance and promised to repurchase $MOVE on the open market using funds recovered from MM.

Still full of doubts

Although Binance took corresponding measures to punish the project party in the Move incident and the community achieved a phased victory, the entire incident is still full of doubts:

For example, in December last year, the project suffered a unilateral market crash of tens of millions of dollars. How could Binance, as a trading platform, not notice it? If it is indeed an operational error, why did not take necessary corrective measures as soon as possible, but chose to disclose it publicly four months later?

From another perspective, if the violation is indeed caused by market makers, why did the project party not take legal measures to hold the accountable? If the market maker assumes full responsibility, why does it not take the initiative to defend itself or provide relevant explanations? These outstanding issues still need further investigation and are urgently needed to respond transparently from both inside and outside the industry.

When the tide recedes, you can see who is swimming naked.

Although the incident achieved a phased victory, the questions behind it have not been resolved. Protecting the interests of retail investors and ensuring fairness and transparency in the crypto market have always been two dark clouds unsolved over web3. Only by thoroughly finding out the truth can the market restore trust and make the ideal of Web3 no longer become empty talk.