After following the Coai and Nofx drama for a few days, I'm here to summarize it for you. The main controversy revolves around open-source code plagiarism and license agreement violations. First, let me clarify that I have no connection to Coai or Nofx; I'm just writing this from a PR perspective. I can only say that their opportunistic marketing tactics make me uncomfortable.
NoFx's accusations:
1. COAI directly copied NoFx's open-source code, making almost no changes to the logo and a few minor interface modifications, before deploying it to a public testnet/subdomain.
2.NoFx This project is licensed under AGPL-3.0 (requires that derivative works be open source and provide source code, especially for web service scenarios).
3. Evidence includes: the deployment page displaying functional interfaces unique to the AGPL version; access logs showing continued use after the protocol change; and the page being indexed by Google and displaying the NoFx brand, etc.
4. NoFx emphasized that they only asked COAI to acknowledge the source, open-source the modified code, and comply with the agreement, without demanding compensation or removal from the platform.
COAI's response:
1. Admits to using early NoFx code during internal testing of the ecosystem project, but claims it was an MIT licensed version (a permissive license that allows commercial use).
2. They denied using the AGPL version, claiming their architecture had been refactored (they used Python + Node.js, while NoFx used Go + React).
3. Accuse NoFx of "entrapment": first attracting users with MIT, then changing to AGPL and then turning around and blaming them; poor communication (the complaint tweets and emails were sent almost simultaneously).
4. The biggest point of contention regarding the commitment to open-source its new architecture code based on MIT is:
1. Protocol Change Timeline: Nofx believes that it changed to AGPL on the 3rd and that COAI used its interface, while COAI insists that it only used the MIT protocol for secondary development and that the actual communication protocol and parameter interface are different.
2. Does this constitute a violation: Under MIT, it's fine to use it freely, but under AGPL, deploying web services requires open-sourcing derivative code. COAI claims it's "only for internal testing and not officially released," but the publicly accessible page is considered to have triggered the obligation.
Then this matter turned into a war of words: NoFx was accused of "moral blackmail marketing", and COAI was accused of "leaving the source spirit after financing".
From a PR perspective, Nofx's marketing strategy of moral blackmail is undeniable. Judging from the materials circulating in various KOL groups exposing Nofx, this is one of the main drivers of this marketing campaign. Firstly, COAI completed its funding round in 2024 and TGE in September 2025, while Noft only started in October. Furthermore, COAI's internal testing code hasn't even been released or commercialized yet. To attack an established project right after starting its own is too coincidental. Secondly, is the open-source spirit in the crypto really that important?
After Polymarket emerged, dozens of copycat projects appeared on the market; after the Ethereum public chain was launched, dozens more copycat projects appeared.
Most applications in the crypto are essentially the same; the competition boils down to operational capabilities. If Nofx truly has exceptional product capabilities, it should try pumping the price like Coai did. Price pumping is the real hard currency in the crypto.
