Skip to main content

0x0.ai (AI Smart Contract Auditor)

0x0.ai (AI Smart Contract Auditor) — a reference card for a crypto project: what the product does and how verifiable the project’s key claims are; also — alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis (DecAI Fit).

0x0.ai — an AI tool for analyzing smart contracts and finding vulnerabilities; token: 0x0 (ERC‑20).

Disclaimer

Important: this page is a reference overview of the project. Within DecAIHub, we separately record a verification based on open sources within the AI thesis (what is real AI/onchain/why a token, and which sources this is based on).
This is not financial advice and not a recommendation to buy/sell/hold any asset. We do not assess price, returns, or entry/exit timing.
Conclusions are based on publicly available materials found as of the verification date. The absence of confirmation does not imply the absence of the technology.

TL;DR (for readers who are not into AI)

  • What it is: an “AI auditor” — a service that automatically analyzes smart contract code and highlights risks/vulnerabilities.
  • Who it’s for: DeFi developers and users who want to quickly check a contract before interacting with it.
  • Why onchain/token: the token exists on Ethereum; part of the incentives for holders is described as ETH rewards from taxes/revenue.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: provides the contract address/code for checking.
  2. The system does: analyzes the contract, looks for patterns and anomalies (ML approach).
  3. The user gets: a list of potential issues (logic, access control, input validation, etc.).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the audit itself is an offchain tool; onchain — the token and its economics.
  5. Token role (if any): tax deductions to ETH rewards for holders and a “revenue distribution” model on mainnet are described.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name 0x0.ai (AI Smart Contract Auditor)
Also known as (aliases) 0x0 exchange; $0x0
Logo (logo) ../assets/146_0x0-ai-ai-smart-contract_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) 0x0
Category AI/Other
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x5a3e6a77ba2f983ec0d371ea3b475f8bc0811ad5
Token model (token_type) utility (incentives)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 0x0
Issuance fixed (total supply)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Total supply 1B; trades/transfers tax 5% (tokenomics).
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) ML smart contract vulnerability analysis
Use‑case (use_case) quick smart contract audit
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 1 / 1 / 2 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

0x0.ai describes the “AI Smart Contract Auditor” as a tool for automatically checking smart contracts for vulnerabilities and risks. It is more of an applied AI service around DeFi security than an onchain protocol.

Features/modules

  • AI Smart Contract Auditor: code analysis and detection of typical classes of vulnerabilities.
  • Dashboard: the ability for holders to “claim/compound” ETH rewards is claimed.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user checks a token/DeFi protocol contract → gets a list of potential issues.
  • Scenario 2: a developer uses the analysis results → fixes vulnerabilities before deployment.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: the contract address/code for analysis; for rewards — access to the dashboard.
  • Network/chain: the 0x0 token is ERC‑20 on Ethereum.
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees for token operations; the terms of use of the service depend on the product/dashboard.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: an offchain analyzer + UI/dashboard; an ERC‑20 token.
  • Where logic runs: the audit — offchain; onchain — the token and its economics (taxes/transfers).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Supply: the tokenomics claims a total supply of 1,000,000,000; fixed supply.
  • Taxes: the tokenomics describes a 5% tax on trades/transfers and its distribution (including 1% to ETH rewards).
  • Rewards: a separate page describes the current ETH rewards, “bootstrapped by 1% tax”, and a plan to transition to a revenue‑based model on mainnet.

Governance

  • Governance: not described in the sources used.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: — (no Tier‑1 audit reports found).
  • Bug bounty: — (no Tier‑1 bug bounty found).
  • Incidents: — (no Tier‑1 postmortems/incidents found).
  • Threat model: offchain service risks (quality/false positives), the risk of “AI conclusions” without metrics, token/tax model risks.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (public website/docs + dashboard).
  • Key releases/milestones: — (no Tier‑1 list of releases/milestones recorded).
  • Roadmap: see links_* → Roadmap.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: not established (no Tier‑1 list of integrations found).
  • Partners: — (no Tier‑1 confirmed list of partners found).
  • Where it’s actually used: as a tool/service for checking contracts (per the description in the docs).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the AI auditor uses ML approaches to find vulnerabilities/anomalies in contract code.
  • What is truly onchain? the 0x0 token (ERC‑20) and its tax/reward logic at the transfer level (if implemented by the contract).
  • Why is a token needed? the docs describe incentives for holders (ETH rewards) and a future revenue distribution model.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing — medium/high (no quality metrics/benchmarks); onchain‑washing — medium (the audit is offchain; the onchain part mostly boils down to the token); token‑washing — medium (the utility looks like rewards/marketing; check the necessity of the token for the core function).

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality low 1
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity low 2
Evidence Tier‑1 present 3
Details

AI reality

AI_0 — AI intent (Tier‑1 roadmap) (1/0)

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): — (there is AI_1: what the AI auditor does is described)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/0x0-ecosystem/ai-smart-contract-auditor
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 applies only if AI_1..AI_4 = 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The ML auditor analyzes smart contracts and detects vulnerabilities/anomalies.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/0x0-ecosystem/ai-smart-contract-auditor
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source describes the functionality of the AI auditor and the types of issues detected.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The docs contain no specific reproducible examples/demos of audit results.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The function is described, but without examples/demo cases.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No quantitative metrics of audit quality are presented.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_4 — tech description/architecture/versions (1/0)

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The technical description of the audit models/architecture is not disclosed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is a functional description, but no model architecture/versions.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

OC_1 — contracts/addresses/chain (1/0)

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum (mainnet)
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 0x0 token contract (see Etherscan)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x0 ; https://docs.0x0.ai/token/0x0-tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract and the network are confirmed by the explorer; the docs describe the token/utility.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_2 — onchain beyond just a token (1/0)

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: Not shown (the core audit logic is described as a service/tool).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/0x0-ecosystem/ai-smart-contract-auditor
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of a token does not equal the necessity of onchain logic for the product.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: what breaks without onchain: the core code analysis can be done offchain.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Onchain is not a critical condition for performing the audit (per the available Tier‑1).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, 0x0 (ERC‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/token/0x0-tokenomics ; https://etherscan.io/token/0x0
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token is explicitly described in the docs and confirmed by the explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_1..TK_4 (1/0)

TK_1 — payment for the service (1/0)

  • TK_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): 0x0 is used as a utility/payment token for ecosystem services.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/token/0x0-tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The tokenomics page describes the purpose/utility of the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_2 — incentives/collateral/penalties (1/0)

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The token is described as a utility with mechanics going beyond “just a payment” (per the tokenomics).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/token/0x0-tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The tokenomics document is a Tier‑1 source for the claimed economic roles of the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): The wording depends on the completeness of the tokenomics page; without additional details we keep a conservative interpretation.

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Governance via the token is not confirmed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Voting/a DAO is not described in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Not applicable as “irreplaceable”: the token’s utility does not prove criticality; the service could be priced differently.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.0x0.ai/token/0x0-tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no proof that the product is impossible without the token (rather a monetization model).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://docs.0x0.ai/0x0-ecosystem/ai-smart-contract-auditor The official description of the AI auditor’s functionality (what the AI does).
Tier‑1 https://docs.0x0.ai/token/0x0-tokenomics The purpose/role of the 0x0 token in the product (utility, economic model).
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x0 Confirmation of the onchain existence of the 0x0 token (ERC‑20, contract on Ethereum).
Tier‑2 — —
Tier‑3 — —

No comments to display

Back to top