Recently, the community has been buzzing—some leading protocols have sued several fork teams over code copyright disputes. Public opinion instantly split into two camps: one shouting "Open source spirit must not die," and the other saying "Intellectual property rights must also be protected." Behind this dispute, there's actually a deeper issue: in the Web3 world that emphasizes decentralization, should project teams delegate authority or hold onto power?

Today, let's look at it from a different perspective. Successful projects—such as certain oracle protocols—approach this not with brute-force control nor naive hands-off strategies, but with a set of approaches centered around the ultimate goal of "trustworthiness."

**The Duality of Intellectual Property**

In traditional business, IP is often used as an offensive weapon: monopolizing markets, building barriers, and charging exorbitant licensing fees. But in the Web3 ecosystem, which emphasizes decentralization and neutral trust, this logic becomes problematic.

Imagine: if the core algorithms and branding of an oracle network are completely controlled by one company, how much is its so-called "decentralization" and "resistance to manipulation" worth? Centralized IP control could become the single point of failure in the entire decentralized system—that's quite ironic.

**Use Shields, Not Spears**

Looking at how top projects handle this, the approach is very clear: the primary purpose of protecting intellectual property is "defense." Specifically:

Prevent brand misuse and fraud. If someone impersonates, tampers with the product, or even uses the name to scam users, such actions must be stopped. Protect brand integrity to ensure users receive accurate, clear, and unaltered information.

This is not about monopolistic tactics but a necessary measure to maintain ecosystem trust. That's the key difference.