Did Monad Copy Aptos? A Blockchain Feud Ignites Controversy

- Debate Over Technical Similarities Between Aptos and Monad - Public Criticism Between Aptos Research Head and Monad Co-founder [Unblock Media] Recently, a heated debate has emerged in the blockchain industry involving Alexander Spiegelman, the head of research at Aptos, and James Hunsaker, the co-founder of Monad. The core issue is that while Monad has seemingly referenced Aptos's technology, it refuses to acknowledge it. This controversy has not only spurred a back-and-forth between the two companies but also reignited discussions about technology sharing and plagiarism within the blockchain ecosystem. The controversy began with a post by Alexander Spiegelman on X (formerly Twitter). In his post, he claimed that "Monad is spending a lot of time copying Aptos's technology," and suggested that "since everything is available as open source and there are already peer-reviewed papers, it would be better for Monad to openly admit they are copying rather than hiding it." Spiegelman pointed out that many of Monad’s key technologies closely resemble Aptos’s BlockSTM (Block-Optimistic Concurrency Control), pipelining techniques, and Aptos BFT (Blockchain Fault Tolerance). In response, Monad co-founder James Hunsaker strongly refuted these claims. He argued, "While you were still in diapers, I was already researching Software Transactional Memory (STM) in a Haskell environment," asserting, "Block-STM is merely an extension, and I have never seen Aptos's code. In fact, if you hadn’t spread such baseless rumors, I wouldn’t have even thought about Aptos." This response not only provided a technical counterargument but also took a mocking tone towards Aptos's claims. Consequently, this intensified the debate and raised questions within the community about whether Monad had indeed referenced Aptos's technology. Industry experts have noted significant similarities between Monad's technology and Aptos's. Aptos’s BlockSTM uses an Optimistic Concurrency Control method to deliver high throughput, closely mirroring Monad's parallel execution model. To be specific, Aptos’s BlockSTM achieves high throughput by processing transactions in parallel and minimizing conflicts between transactions through optimistic concurrency control. Similarly, Monad seeks to enhance performance by adopting a parallel execution model to increase blockchain network scalability. Movement maintains technological reliability by clearly referencing relevant papers and research. For example, their 'Reparo: Publicly Verifiable Layer to Repair Blockchains' paper addresses blockchain reparability, and Movement has based its technical implementation on such research. By transparently acknowledging their technical references, Movement builds trust within its project. Conversely, Monad's reluctance to clearly mention Aptos while using similar technologies has sparked further controversy. Interestingly, despite the debate being between Monad and Aptos, Aptos also suddenly criticized Sui. Alexander Spiegelman commented, "No one references Sui, so why are we the only ones being criticized?" which appears to reflect a sense of rivalry within Aptos towards Sui. Indeed, Sui’s technologies like zkLogin and Narwhal-Bullshark are known to have evolved by referencing various papers and research, and projects like IOTA, IKA, and Talus have also drawn on similar technologies. Some believe Aptos's criticism of Sui reveals a lack of thorough investigation. In the meantime, the Sui community seems to be enjoying the benefits of competition among other projects while watching the unfolding debate. This controversy extends beyond the clash between Monad and Aptos, sparking an important discourse on how to acknowledge technological inspiration and utilize open-source technology within the blockchain industry. Although it appears likely Monad referenced Aptos's technology, its complete denial has fueled the dispute. Aptos has also been criticized for expanding the issue by suddenly involving Sui. Projects like Movement and Sui, which transparently disclose their technical references, are perceived as more trustworthy. In the long run, such debates could foster a culture of fair contribution and open-source technology sharing in the blockchain ecosystem. Establishing clear contribution guidelines within the open-source community and setting standards for technical references and citations are essential. Additionally, fostering smooth communication and collaboration between projects can help reduce unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts. It remains to be seen how this debate will impact future blockchain technology development and the ecosystem, and whether Monad will continue to deny the technical similarities with Aptos.