I've been eating COAI and NoFX melons for a few days now The class representative will summarize this melon for everyone These two mainly revolve around disputes over open-source code plagiarism and license agreement violations Firstly, I would like to clarify that I do not have any experience with Coai or Nofx. I am only writing this article from the perspective of a public relations professional, and I can only say that I feel uncomfortable with the marketing tactics used NoFx's accusation: 1. COAI directly copied the open source code of NoFx, almost only changing the logo and a small amount of interface, and deployed it to run on a public testing network/subdomain 2. The NoFx project uses AGPL-3.0 license (requiring derivative works to be open source and provide source code, especially in network service scenarios) 3. Evidence includes: AGPL version specific feature interfaces appearing on deployment pages, access logs showing continued use after protocol changes, pages indexed by Google and displaying the NoFx brand, etc NoFx emphasizes that they only seek COAI's recognition of the source, open source modification of the code, compliance with the agreement, and do not demand compensation or removal. COAI's response: 1. Admit to using early NoFx code during internal testing of the ecological project, but claim it is an MIT licensed version (loose license, allowing commercial use) 2. Deny using AGPL version, claiming to have refactored the architecture (they use Python+Node.js, NoFx uses Go+React) 3. Accuse NoFx of "phishing enforcement": first attract users with MIT, then switch to AGPL and then turn the tables; Lack of sincerity in communication (sending complaint tweets and emails almost simultaneously). 4. Promise to open source our own new architecture code based on MIT The biggest controversy at present is: 1. Protocol change timeline: Nofx believes that AGPL was changed on the 3rd and COAI used its interface, while COAI insists on only using the MIT protocol for secondary development and the communication protocol and parameter interface of this interface are essentially different 2. Does it constitute a violation: Using it casually under MIT is not a problem, but deploying network services under AGPL requires open source derived code. COAI stated that 'only internal testing has not been officially released', but publicly accessible pages are considered as triggering obligations. Then this incident evolved into a public opinion debate: NoFx was accused of "moral blackmail marketing", while COAI was accused of "financing backing away from the source spirit". Actually, from the perspective of a PR person, Nofx's moral blackmail marketing, which is fixed on the board, can be considered one of the main drivers of this marketing campaign based on Nofx's information posted in various groups of a certain KOL Mainly, COAI completed its financing in 2024 and became TGE in September 2025, while Noft only started in October. Moreover, the code for COAI's internal testing has not yet been launched, released, or commercially operated At the beginning of operating the project, I immediately started working on old projects, which was a bit too coincidental Secondly, is the open-source spirit in the cryptocurrency industry really that important? After the emergence of the polymarket, there were dozens of imitations in the market, and after the ETH public chain came out, there were also dozens of imitations Most applications in the cryptocurrency circle are originally the same, competing for operational and product capabilities If Nofx is really awesome, try pulling the market like Coai, pulling the market is the hard currency in the cryptocurrency circle