Binance Terminates Cooperation with Movement's Market Maker web3port

Yesterday, the most discussed topic in the crypto industry was undoubtedly the victory of the Movement community in defending its rights.

Author: Scof, ChainCatcher

Yesterday, the most discussed topic in the crypto industry was undoubtedly the victory of the Movement community in defending its rights.

According to Binance's official announcement, Binance has terminated its cooperation with Movement's market maker web3port and banned it from continuing its market making activities on the platform. The market maker sold a large number of tokens the day after MOVE went online, causing market fluctuations and earning a net profit of about 38 million USDT through this behavior. In order to protect the interests of users, Binance has notified the Movement team and frozen the market maker's earnings, which are planned to be used to compensate users later.

Community members lamented: "As long as the community is united, the torch can illuminate the darkness."

However, although this rights protection 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.

From the community controversy

Recently, crypto KOL IceFrog published an article titled "Seven Questions to Movement: In the Face of Facts, Please Respond Positively to Community Concerns", which revealed many problems with Movement and attracted widespread attention.

According to Rootdata, Movement is a modular framework compatible with Solidity for building and deploying infrastructure, applications, etc. based on the Move programming language in any distributed environment.

Initially, the $MOVE token airdrop distribution plan attracted a lot of attention, promising to distribute 50%-60% of the tokens to the community. However, in practice, the airdrop window was too short, the distribution ratio was far lower than expected, and the rules were complicated and opaque, which disappointed many participants.

Data shows that 98.5% of addresses received less than 100 tokens, while some addresses received as many as 490,000 tokens, which has caused the community to question the fairness of the distribution.

Many people believe that the project's airdrop is intended to create an "illusion of wealth" by driving up the price of coins and then selling them for profit, charging high gas fees, and even locking up some tokens, making it impossible for users to circulate their assets. This practice goes against the original "community first" concept and has been criticized as "harvesting retail investors."

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

A phased victory for community rights protection?

After Binance terminated its cooperation with the market maker, the Movement Network Foundation issued a statement saying that the Movement Network Foundation and Movement Labs were unaware of this and chose to cooperate with this market maker because they had supported projects in the Movement ecosystem. At present, the foundation has cut off all relations with the market maker (including ecosystem partnerships) and contacted other major exchanges to inform them of the ongoing investigation.

Throughout this incident, the Movement Network Foundation has actively cooperated with Binance and has pledged to use the funds recovered from MM to repurchase $MOVE on the open market.

Still full of doubts

Although Binance took corresponding measures to punish the project owner in the Move incident, and the community achieved a phased victory, the entire incident is still shrouded in doubt:

For example, the project had a unilateral dump of tens of millions of dollars in December last year. How could Binance, as a trading platform, not notice it? If it was indeed an operational error, why didn't it take the necessary corrective measures at the first time, but chose to disclose it publicly four months later?

From another perspective, if the violations were indeed caused by the market maker, why didn’t the project party take legal action to hold it accountable? If the market maker took full responsibility, why didn’t it take the initiative to defend itself or provide relevant explanations? These unresolved issues still need further investigation and urgently need transparent responses from both inside and outside the industry.

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

Although this incident has achieved a phased victory, the questions behind it remain unanswered. Protecting the interests of retail investors and ensuring fairness and transparency in the crypto market have always been two dark clouds hanging over web3. Only by thoroughly finding out the truth can the market restore trust and the ideals of Web3 no longer become empty talk.