There is a Chinese article on Twitter claiming that the tax reform of deployer can turn NOXA's already issued coins into Pixiu. Many group members panicked and cleared their positions. I will also write based on Grok's judgment: 1、 Personal judgment First of all, I don't understand technology, I just make a basic judgment based on the market. Judging from the rebound of large plates of CASHCAT and other NOXAs, it can be basically concluded that there should be no problem. If it really turns into a Pixiu, then CASHCAT should be bleeding. Because there are too many people who understand technology, don't foreigners understand? Are foreigners all fools? 2、 Grok's statement Yes, his statement is basically accurate in terms of core facts, but the conclusion that "it will become a Pixiu disk" is currently "there is a technical possibility, but the actual probability of occurrence is not high". 1. The accurate part of the statement There are real internal disputes and centralization risks: the contract deployer (dev. noxa. eth, controlling smart contracts) and the fee recipient (treasure. noxa. eth) of NOXA launchpad did indeed have a falling out over revenue sharing issues. The project has collected millions of dollars in fees (some say up to $14 million+), and the deployer controls unopened/unverified contracts, with permissions to modify fee parameters, deploy features, and more, while the founder controls the website and front-end. Specific actions taken: The deployer has set the platform handling fee to 0 (or directly routed 100% of the fee to the token creator) and disabled the launch of new tokens. The founder closed the original website and launched a new interface (fun. noxa. eth). These are highly consistent with the "deadlock" described in the post, where "A changed the handling fee to 0". There is a possibility of 'turning Pixiu' in technology: because the contract has not been verified as open source, external mechanisms such as fee limits, upgradability, and mandatory platform routing cannot be confirmed. If the deployer holds key permissions, theoretically they can increase the platform fee parameters (even in extreme cases affecting buying and selling), making the trading cost of tokens launched through NOXA extremely high or difficult to sell. This warning is reasonable. 2. CASHCAT will not currently become a Pixiu drive CASHCAT is still trading normally: its contract address is 0x020bfc650a365f8bb26819deaabf3e21291018b4 (Robinhood Chain), mainly traded on Uniswap V3 (Robinhood), with significant trading volume and price fluctuations (approaching new highs recently). If a selling fee close to 100% is set or selling is blocked, the on chain trading volume will immediately return to zero or experience a huge slippage, but currently there is no such situation. The difference between launched tokens and new launch mechanisms: early tokens launched through NOXA such as CASHCAT have liquidity mainly on DEX. Platform fees have a greater impact on "transactions through NOXA interface/routing" or new launch projects. The current action of the deployer is to stop new launches and give all fees to the creator, rather than setting high punitive fees for existing tokens. The latest community feedback: today (July 14), the relevant discussion mainly complained about "launchpad was self destructed", "new launches were disabled" and "all fees were paid to creator", but there was no report that CASHCAT or other mainstream launched tokens became unsold. 3. Additional risk reminders X account has been hacked: Noxa Fi official account is suspected to have been hacked. Users should not connect their wallets, sign any transactions, or click any links. This is a recent serious security warning. The common problem with centralized launch pads is that contract control and cost setting rights are concentrated in a few addresses and have not been open source verified, which is a typical "grass platform team" or "single point of failure" risk. After the project became popular, the internal spoils were unevenly distributed, causing the deployer to "flip the table". Summary: The online analysis captures the essence of the problem (dispute+centralization risk+technical feasibility), which is worth referring to. But so far, there is no sign that CASHCAT has become a Pixiu disk, and the actual operation of deployer is more like "cutting off the platform's revenue source" rather than "poisoning the launched tokens". It is recommended to continuously monitor on chain (especially the administrator operations of the launchpad contract) and trusted source updates, while staying away from suspicious links and signatures. This type of event once again reminds everyone to be prepared for the worst-case scenario when launching/trading high-risk projects with unverified contract launch pads. My judgment does not constitute any investment advice. Also, don't listen to the saying 'wind is rain', have your own judgment.