Skip to main content

AstroPepeX

AstroPepeX — 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).

AstroPepeX — an AI/Other \| Meme project on the Ethereum network, token (symbol: APX).

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: a token project that, in Tier‑1 sources, describes an “AI token deployer” approach: generation of token parameters/artifacts via GPT/DALL·E and automated deployment via a script.
  • Who it’s for: developers/enthusiasts who want to reproduce the “generate → customize → deploy” token pipeline using AI models.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain — issuance and accounting of the APX token (ERC‑20, Ethereum); the role of the token as a mandatory instrument of access/payment for the service is not established per Tier‑1.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): the “AI Token Deployer” application (aiis.dev) and the Telegram bot @AstroPepe_Bot.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: sets the token parameters (or asks the AI to generate them) and launches the deployment.
  2. The system does: uses the OpenAI API (GPT/DALL·E) in the deployment script to generate artifacts (per the project’s description) and deploys the token on an EVM network via Hardhat.
  3. The user gets: the created/deployed token and the related artifacts (name/ticker/image) — within the described experiment.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the APX token contract and the deployment operations — onchain (Ethereum).
  5. Token role: the APX token is an onchain asset; the utility of the token in the product (payment/access/incentives) is not established per the available sources.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name AstroPepeX
Also known as (aliases) APX, AI IS DEV
Logo (logo) ../assets/564_astropepex_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) APX
Category AI/Other | Meme
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 0xed4e879087ebD0e8A77d66870012B5e0dffd0Fa4
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply 65,000,000,000 APX (max total supply)
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) The website claims: 100% LP burnt; ownership revoked (requires re‑checking against onchain artifacts/transactions).
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI token deployer pipeline (GPT/DALL·E + Hardhat)
Use‑case (use_case) token generation + deployment via AI
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 3 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 1
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

AstroPepeX, in Tier‑1 sources, describes an “AI‑generated token” experiment/pipeline: the use of the OpenAI API (GPT/DALL·E) in a script that generates the token’s parameters and artifacts and deploys the contract on an EVM network. The croissanteth/chatgpt-token repository is available as a Tier‑1 artifact; it describes running the deploygpt4.ts script and the dependencies (Hardhat, OpenAI API key).

Important: the existence of an “AI creation scenario” does not mean that the token has an ongoing AI component in the protocol. The confirmed onchain component is the ERC‑20 token contract itself.

Features/modules

  • AI Token Deployer: a “Generate → Customize → Deploy” interface/script using AI models.
  • APX ERC‑20 token: an onchain contract on Ethereum.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a developer runs the deployment script with an OpenAI key → gets generated token parameters and a deployment on an EVM network.
  • Scenario 2: a user tries the aiis.dev web application → generates/customizes a token before deployment (demo surface).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: for onchain operations — an EVM wallet; for running locally — Node.js, Hardhat and an OpenAI API key.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum mainnet (the APX token); for deployment from the repository an EVM network is mentioned (the example in the README is Goerli).
  • Fees: network gas for onchain deployment/operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the ERC‑20 token contract; a repository with a deployment script via Hardhat; a web application (AI token deployer).
  • Participant roles: users/developers who run the generation/deployment; token holders.
  • Where logic runs: AI generation and collection of artifacts — offchain (via API); deployment and accounting of the token — onchain (Ethereum).
  • Dependencies: OpenAI API (per the README), Hardhat/Node.js, RPC.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: — (not established per the available sources).
  • Who pays fees: Ethereum gas for onchain operations.
  • Issuance/burn: max total supply is given in the onchain profile of the token; the website claims “100% LP burnt” (needs to be re‑checked against transactions).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: — (not established per the available sources).
  • How protocol parameters change: — (not established per the available sources).
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: — (not established per the available sources).
  • Keys/multisig: — (not established per the available sources).

Security and incidents

  • Audits: — (not found per the available sources).
  • Bug bounty: — (not found per the available sources).
  • Incidents: — (not established per the available sources).
  • Threat model: risks of the token smart contract and risks of the offchain pipeline (API keys, deployment environment); details not established.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: mainnet
  • Key releases/milestones: — (not found per the available sources)
  • Roadmap: — (not found per the available sources)

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: OpenAI API (in the deployment script, per the README), Hardhat/EVM tooling.
  • Partners: — (not established per the available sources)
  • Where it’s actually used: — (not established per the available sources)

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? Tier‑1 sources describe an AI pipeline for token generation/deployment: interaction with a GPT model and DALL·E (via the OpenAI API) and creation of the token’s artifacts in a script.
  • What is truly onchain? the APX token contract (ERC‑20) on the Ethereum network.
  • Why is a token needed? the role of the token as a mandatory “access/payment key” for the AI service is not established; the role of the token as an onchain asset is confirmed.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing — “AI onchain” claims without reproducible technical details; onchain‑washing — if onchain is limited to the token without protocol logic; token‑washing — claims about utility without an onchain mechanic.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality high 3
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity low 0
Evidence Tier‑1 present 1
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI is described as pipeline functionality (generation/deployment), not only as roadmap intent.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): given the description of specific AI operations, we use AI_1/AI_2/AI_4 instead of AI_0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): AI is used to generate the token’s parameters/artifacts (name/ticker/supply/image) and to prepare the deployment (per the project’s description).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io ; https://raw.githubusercontent.com/croissanteth/chatgpt-token/main/README.md
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the Tier‑1 website and README describe the use of the OpenAI API and the deployment script.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the “AI Token Deployer” web application (Generate/Customize/Deploy) and a Telegram bot are available.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://aiis.dev ; https://t.me/AstroPepe_Bot ; https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a “demo surface” for the claimed AI pipeline.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: — (not found)
  • Context (version/date/how measured): — (not found)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are no quantitative quality metrics of generation in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the tech stack and launch are described: Hardhat + OpenAI API key + the deploygpt4.ts script (GPT calls and DALL·E).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://raw.githubusercontent.com/croissanteth/chatgpt-token/main/README.md
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the README describes the dependencies and the integration points with the OpenAI API in the script.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: the APX token (0xed4e879087ebD0e8A77d66870012B5e0dffd0Fa4)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xed4e879087ebD0e8A77d66870012B5e0dffd0Fa4
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the address and metadata of the token are available in a public onchain explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: not established (per the available sources).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no description of separate onchain logic of the protocol (beyond the token/LP operations) was found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: no Tier‑1 justification of onchain criticality (in terms of “what breaks down without the blockchain”) was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without an explicit “replace the blockchain” test we set 0 (conservatively).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, APX (ERC‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xed4e879087ebD0e8A77d66870012B5e0dffd0Fa4
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token contract is listed in the onchain explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_1..TK_4 (1/0)

TK_1 — payment for the service (1/0)

  • TK_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no Tier‑1 confirmation was found that APX is used as a payment token for the service.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): in Tier‑1 sources APX is described as a token; a payment role is not confirmed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): incentives/collateral/penalties via the token are not established per the available sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no Tier‑1 description of an onchain mechanic of incentives/staking/slashing via the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a governance role of the token is not established per the available sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are no Tier‑1 artifacts (docs/votes) confirming a governance mechanic.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the replaceability of the token is not established per the available sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://astropepe.io
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no Tier‑1 test/justification of replaceability.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://astropepe.io Tier‑1 description of the “AI‑created token” experiment and the claimed pipeline (GPT/DALL·E + deployment).
Tier‑1 https://github.com/croissanteth/chatgpt-token Repository: fully automated token deployment with ChatGPT and DALL·E (Tier‑1 code/docs).
Tier‑1 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/croissanteth/chatgpt-token/main/README.md README: dependencies (Hardhat, OpenAI API key) and running deploygpt4.ts.
Tier‑1 https://aiis.dev Demo surface: “AI Token Deployer” (Generate/Customize/Deploy).
Tier‑1 https://t.me/AstroPepe_Bot The project’s Telegram bot (demo surface).
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xed4e879087ebD0e8A77d66870012B5e0dffd0Fa4 The APX token contract (ERC‑20) and max total supply.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the token has confirmed utility (payment/access/incentives) in the protocol” was found.
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/astropepex Profile (for reference; not Tier‑1 evidence).

No comments to display

Back to top