All the Wrong Moves

They promised a token for the people, but the blockchain whispers a different story.

Movement Labs raised $38 million, secured backing from Trump's World Liberty Financial, and stood poised to close a $100 million Series B round valuing the company at $3 billion.

Their layer-2 blockchain promised Ethereum scaling salvation with Facebook's Move programming language - positioning the tech as safer and faster, with a strong community-first approach.

Then came the real movedrop.

Sixty-six million MOVE tokens flooded exchanges twenty-four hours after debut, mysterious wallets pocketing $38 million while retail investors watched their portfolios melt faster than ice cream in hell.

Behind the scenes, a web of contracts connected Movement Foundation to a middleman called Rentech, which somehow ended up funneling tokens to Web3Port Labs - despite containing provisions that blockchain experts called "insane."

Now Binance has banned the market maker, Coinbase plans to delist the token on May 15th, and a co-founder sits on administrative leave while damage control teams scramble through the wreckage.

While executives scramble for narrative control, the blockchain receipts remain unchanged and uncaring.

Who exactly planned these wrong moves - and were they playing chess while telling everyone else they were playing checkers?

Token dumps typically happen in shadows, but Movement's spectacular implosion comes with receipts, many of which were uncovered in Sam Kessler's detailed reporting for CoinDesk.

Behind glossy promotional materials and Twitter threads about "community" lurked a financial arrangement so brazen that blockchain experts reviewing the contracts called them "insane."

Not simply aggressive or questionable - insane.

The saga begins with a middleman named Rentech - an entity with zero digital footprint that somehow convinced Movement Foundation to loan it approximately half of MOVE's publicly circulating supply to Web3Port Labs.

For context, imagine giving a stranger you just met half the keys to your kingdom because they promised to guard the gate.

According to Cooper Scanlon, Movement Labs' co-founder, the foundation was "led to believe" Rentech operated as a subsidiary of Web3Port, a Chinese market maker.

Slack messages reveal internal confusion over Rentech's actual identity - confusion that somehow didn't prevent Movement from signing contracts that handed Rentech massive control over their token's destiny.

The deal's most alarming feature? A clause allowing the market maker to liquidate tokens once MOVE hit a $5 billion valuation, splitting profits 50-50 with the foundation.

Veteran crypto founder Zaki Manian reviewed the documents and concluded: "There are incentives basically to manipulate the price to over $5 billion fully diluted value and then dump on retail for shared profit."

This wasn't just poor judgment.

The contract contained what experts called a "perverse incentive" for price manipulation.

Movement's general counsel, YK Pek, initially flagged the proposal as "possibly the worst agreement I have ever seen."

Yet remarkably, a revised version crafted by Pek himself still contained the same core provision: Web3Port could borrow 5% of MOVE's supply with a profit-sharing arrangement for token sales.

Twenty-four hours after MOVE debuted on exchanges, wallets tied to Web3Port did exactly what the contract incentivized - they dumped 66 million tokens onto the market.

Binance later called this "misconduct" and banned the market maker.

Transaction records tell a different story.

Documentation reviewed by CoinDesk revealed something even more curious - Web3Port had already entered an agreement with "Movement" weeks before the December 8 deal.

This earlier contract showed Rentech acting as Movement's representative, despite Movement Foundation insisting they had no knowledge of such an arrangement.

This earlier contract showed Rentech acting as Movement's representative, despite Cooper Scanlon claiming the foundation was "led to believe" Rentech operated as a subsidiary of Web3Port.

How does a token issuer accidentally sign away half its circulating supply through a phantom middleman that represents both sides of the deal?

And who crafted this elaborate shell game when a simple market-making agreement would have sufficed?

Moving in the Shadows

Every crypto catastrophe has its cast of characters, and Movement's meltdown doesn't disappoint.

At center stage stands Rushi Manche, Movement's wunderkind co-founder who circulated the Rentech deal internally and championed it to the team.

Four sources close to the situation told CoinDesk that Manche was the one who first forwarded the contract to Movement Foundation in a Telegram message with a simple directive - it needed a signature.

Initially placed on a temporary leave of absence in mid-April, Manche has now been formally suspended as of May 2nd.

Movement Labs confirmed his suspension was made "in light of ongoing events and as the third-party review is still being conducted."

In an April 30th statement laced with deflection, Manche positioned himself as a victim of betrayal, claiming the team had “trusted various advisers and members on the foundation team,” only to discover that “at least one member… represented interests on both sides of the market maker deal.”

Lurking in the periphery was a figure that insiders called the 'shadow co-founder' - Sam Thapaliya, the creator of crypto protocol Zebec and a key adviser to the startup’s youthful leadership.

Internal communications reveal Thapaliya was copied on multiple emails regarding the market-making arrangement.

One employee noted: "A lot of times we'd decide on something, and at the last minute there would be this change. In those cases, we knew it was probably coming from Sam."

Meanwhile, Rentech's creator Galen Law-Kun pointed fingers at Movement's legal counsel, claiming YK Pek "helped set up and was general counsel of Autonomy SG, which is the parent or affiliate company of Rentech."

Pek fired back, calling the claim "confused and disturbing."

Cooper Scanlon, Movement's other co-founder, played the voice of reason, telling employees via Slack that "Movement is a victim in this situation" and commissioning a third-party investigation by auditing firm Groom Lake.

Between a contract-forwarding co-founder, a 'shadow' adviser pulling strings, a legal counsel who rewrote the same deal he once condemned, and a middleman playing both sides.

Exactly whose fingerprints are on the knife that gutted MOVE investors?

The Real Movedrop

MOVE's price chart now resembles a bungee jump without the bounce.

Following Binance's decision to ban MOVE for "misconduct," Coinbase delivered another blow on May 2nd - announcing it would suspend trading of MOVE on May 15th.

The exchange cited failure to meet "listing standards" while placing MOVE's order books in limit-only mode.

The token immediately shed another 20%, with its market cap plummeting to around $450 million, down from over $2.5 billion at its peak around the beginning of 2025.

Behind the scenes, The Movement Network Foundation scrambled to salvage investor confidence.

They announced a "strategic reserve" of 38 million USDT - conveniently matching the exact amount that Web3Port extracted - and promised to deploy these funds "to restore liquidity in the Movement ecosystem."

In crypto-speak, that's the equivalent of announcing you'll use band-aids to patch a bullet wound

The real victim might be MoveDrop - Movement's long-anticipated token airdrop for community members.

Touted as a community-first initiative, it now sits indefinitely delayed.

Movement Lab's April 30th announcement blamed "a significant sybil attack" and "ongoing investigation into market maker abnormalities" for the postponement.

"We know you have been waiting for this. We know this is inexcusable," Movement Labs tweeted, before promising to reallocate "sybil tokens" to ecosystem rewards.

One person questioned whether founders had "borrowed liquid tokens from the Foundation" to lock in personal profits while pretending to remain vested.

The broader damage extends beyond price crashes. Movement's once-revolutionary tech narrative now sits overshadowed by governance failures and insider dealings.

Projects that built atop Movement's ecosystem now face existential questions about their foundation.

When your entire token utility relies on community trust, how much technology actually matters once that trust lies shattered in a million pieces?

Layer-2 blockchains fork. Tokens dump. Narratives shift.

Behind every crypto catastrophe stands someone holding keys, clicking buttons, signing contracts.

Movement's saga features all the greatest hits - phantom middlemen, legal counsel who warned of "worst agreements ever" before drafting them anyway, wunderkind founders suddenly suspended, and shadow advisers copied on deals they claim no part in.

Someone walked away with $38 million. Everyone else walks away with lessons.

Major exchanges didn't need CoinDesk's reporting or third-party audits - they needed only a glance at the blockchain to render judgment.

While Movement promises transparency through their hired investigators at Groom Lake, exchanges simply removed themselves from the equation entirely.

The contracts tell what happened. The blockchain shows when it happened.

Only the "why" remains conveniently obscured by technical jargon and finger-pointing.

Five years into DeFi's revolution, extracting value from retail still comes down to well-placed signatures on cleverly worded agreements.

Different tech, same game - just with fancier explanations and better exit mechanisms.

When your community-first blockchain requires multiple shadow agreements just to function, exactly what problem were you solving beyond personal enrichment?

REKT serves as a public platform for anonymous authors, we take no responsibility for the views or content hosted on REKT.

donate (ETH / ERC20): 0x3C5c2F4bCeC51a36494682f91Dbc6cA7c63B514C

disclaimer:

REKT is not responsible or liable in any manner for any Content posted on our Website or in connection with our Services, whether posted or caused by ANON Author of our Website, or by REKT. Although we provide rules for Anon Author conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what Anon Author post, transmit or share on our Website or Services, and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on our Website or Services. REKT is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of our Website or Services.