In February 2025, a heated debate erupted in the blockchain space around the originality of the technology and the ethics of open source. aptos research director Alexander Spiegelman publicly accused Monad of plagiarizing its core technology, particularly the BlockSTM dynamic parallel execution framework, and argued that Monad had not adequately acknowledged the open source contributions of aptos during development. He argued that Monad did not adequately recognize Aptos’ open source contributions during development. He pointed out that Aptos’ technology (e.g., pipeline design, decoupled execution architecture) has been made public in multiple peer-reviewed papers, and that Monad’s BlockSTM is “highly similar to AptosBFT,” even suggesting that Monad “spent a lot of time reverse-engineering rather than developing it originally.
In response, Monad co-founder James Hunsaker responded strongly, stating that the underlying logic of BlockSTM is derived from Software Transactional Memory (STM) and the 1979 theory of Optimistic Concurrency Control (OCC), and emphasizing that he had been working on the technology in a Haskell environment and had never referenced Aptos code. If Aptos hadn’t started the dispute, I wouldn’t have even thought of this project,” he said sarcastically.
Technology Comparison: BlockSTM vs.
Focus of the Controversy The core differences between BlockSTM and AptosBFT can be analyzed from three aspects: design philosophy, technology traceability, and performance metrics:
Design Philosophy – AptosBFT is optimized based on the HotStuff consensus algorithm, emphasizes dynamic parallel execution and state synchronization efficiency, and improves throughput through pipelining. BlockSTM, on the other hand, adopts an optimistic parallel execution strategy, concurrently processes transactions before they are verified, relies on superscalar pipelining techniques to reduce hardware dependency, and aims to achieve single-slot finality.
Technology Traceability – Aptos asserts that its technology originates from a deep adaptation of the Move language and the Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) mechanism, while Monad emphasizes that BlockSTM is an extension of the traditional STM theory on EVM-compatible chains, and is not directly related to Aptos.
Performance index – Aptos currently has a TPS of about 15,000, while Monad claims that it can reach 100,000, but both of them have not fully publicized the stress test data, so the actual performance still needs to be verified.
Community Reaction: Split and Rational
The controversy has polarized the blockchain community. Supporters of Aptos argue that Monad’s EVM-compatible solution is a “design coincidence” with Aptos’ Move virtual machine, and call for stricter open-source referencing. Meanwhile, Monad supporters question the originality of Aptos’ technology by pointing out, through testnet data, that Monad’s asynchronous I/O and stateful database optimizations are significantly different from those of Aptos. Elena Stark, a neutral researcher, wrote that the similarity between BlockSTM and AptosBFT reflects the convergence of technology in the industry, and called for the open-source ecosystem to focus more on collaboration rather than confrontation.
Monad Project Progress: Ambitions and Challenges
Despite the controversy, Monad’s technology path and ecological construction are still progressing steadily.2024 In Q4, Monad launched MonadDB, a customized database based on Patricia Trie, which improves state storage compression efficiency by 40%. In addition, Monad realized single-second block confirmation on its test network, and the hardware threshold of verification nodes was lowered to 16-core CPU+64GB RAM, attracting the participation of small and medium-sized mining pools.
In terms of eco-expansion, the Monad Foundation’s eco-fund has reached $200 million, focusing on supporting DeFi and gaming applications, and in January 2025, NovaX, a derivatives protocol, and MetaCivic, a chain game, announced that they would migrate to Monad. Meanwhile, Monad’s developer toolchain, the Monad SDK, has exceeded 500,000 downloads, and is compatible with the Hardhat and Truffle frameworks, which reduces the cost of mining. At the same time, Monad’s developer toolchain, Monad SDK, surpassed 500,000 downloads and is compatible with the Hardhat and Truffle frameworks, lowering the cost of migration for ethereum developers.
Industry Impact: Paradigm Rethinking of Open Source Ecology
This controversy has exposed three deep-rooted problems in the blockchain industry:
The definition of intellectual property rights in open source protocols: does code disclosure mean that technical ideas can be freely copied? Spiegelman's accusation is essentially a fight over 'attribution of technical influence', while Hunsaker's rebuttal highlights the blurred boundaries between academic theory and engineering practice.
Sustainability of the Performance Race: Both Aptos and Monad sell high TPS, but the market is more interested in ecological maturity than performance metrics, as reflected in Aptos' 96% developer growth rate in 2024 and Monad's ecosystem of less than a hundred apps.
Transparency in community governance: the Monad Foundation's concentration of power in the founding team raises questions about 'decentralization', while despite Aptos' DAO governance, key decisions are still led by core developers.Future Outlook: Competition or Symbiosis?
In the short term, the controversy could intensify the rivalry between Aptos, which may be consolidating its barriers by patenting some of its technology, but this could undermine its open source image, and Monad, which needs to accelerate its ecosystem in order to prove its ability to innovate. If performance promises are not met, Monad could face a dilemma similar to that of Core DAO.
In the long run, Aptos and Monad may differentiate themselves, with Aptos focusing on the Move ecosystem and expanding into financial and compliance scenarios (e.g., cross-border settlements with Visa), while Monad attracts ethereum developers with its EVM compatibility and focuses on high-frequency transactions and high-performance requirements such as gaming.
While this controversy will ultimately be a footnote in the evolution of blockchain technology, the discussion it has sparked about open source ethics will push the industry to develop clearer standards for technology traceability and collaboration frameworks. As Hunsaker said, “Code can be copied, but ecology cannot be plagiarized.”
