Skip to main content

Bad Coin

Bad Coin — 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).

Bad Coin — an AI/Other project on the Base network, token (symbol: —).

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 platform for talking to AI agents and launching/configuring them (including via the visual builder Chaingraph); the $ARCHAI token on the Base network is used in staking/governance/access mechanics (see Tier‑1).
  • Who it’s for: users who talk to AI agents; creators/communities who launch/configure AI agents and chats.
  • Why onchain/token: the token is used for staking (with a governance signal and perks/access) and as part of the platform’s mechanics; onchain records ownership/transfers of the token on Base.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): a list of AI agents in the web application (chat with agents).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: interacts with the token (receiving/transferring/holding).
  2. The system does: the Base network records the contract state and transactions.
  3. The user gets: onchain confirmation of ownership/transfers.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the token contract and operations with it — onchain on Base.
  5. Token role (if any): not established (no Tier‑1 description of utility/necessity).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Bad Coin
Also known as (aliases) ARCH AI, ARCHAI
Logo (logo) ../assets/884_bad-coin_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) ARCHAI
Category AI/Other
Primary chain (chain) Base
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Base; Ethereum L2)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) —
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xD3b0b58eC9516e4b875a075328E2CB059d4d54dB
Token model (token_type) utility (access + staking + governance)
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) —
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI agents (chat) + agent workflow builder
Use‑case (use_case) create/launch AI agents + chats
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 4/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 3 / 1 / 1 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Per Tier‑1 sources, the project describes a platform for talking to AI agents (in chat rooms) and launching/configuring them, as well as a set of guides for users/agent creators. The $ARCHAI token is used in staking mechanics (with claimed governance rights/perks/access) and exists as an ERC‑20 token on the Base network.

Features/modules

  • Chat with AI agents: interaction with agents and multi‑agent chats.
  • Chaingraph: a visual builder/editor for assembling agent workflows.
  • $ARCHAI staking: a separate staking section/mechanic with a description of perks and the governance signal.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user opens the list of agents → starts a chat with the selected agent.
  • Scenario 2: a creator configures/assembles an agent via Chaingraph and tests it in a demo chat.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet that supports Base.
  • Network/chain: Base.
  • Fees: Base network fees for transfers/operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the token contract on the Base network.
  • Participant roles: token holders and participants of the Base network.
  • Where logic runs: accounting/transfers of the token — onchain on Base.
  • Dependencies: Base RPC/wallets/infrastructure.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: Tier‑1 describes $ARCHAI staking as a mechanism with a governance signal and perks/access.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: per Tier‑1, the token is used in staking and is linked to access/perks in the ecosystem; protocol‑level onchain necessity other than the token is not established.
  • Who pays fees: users of the Base network.
  • Where fees go: to the sequencer/validators/L1 participants per Base/Ethereum rules (depends on the fee component).
  • Issuance/burn: —.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: —.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: —.
  • Treasury: —.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: —.
  • How protocol parameters change: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: risks are typical for tokens and wallet/RPC infrastructure; without a Tier‑1 description of the product, the threat model is not established.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: mainnet (based on the fact of the token’s existence on the network).
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: —.
  • Partners: —.
  • Where it’s actually used: —.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? user interaction with AI agents in chats; the platform describes agent launch/configuration and “persistent memory”.
  • What is truly onchain? the token contract on the Base network (contract and transactions — onchain).
  • Why is a token needed? per the Tier‑1 description — $ARCHAI staking is linked to a governance signal and “perks/access” (for example, “premium agent launches”).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): absence of Tier‑1 quality metrics/benchmarks for agents; “AI agents” may be a thin wrapper over external LLMs without a verifiable part; the role of the token may be replaceable if protocol necessity is not described.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 4/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 3
Onchain necessity low (token only) 1
Token necessity low 1
Evidence Tier‑1 present 3
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI is described as working platform functionality (AI agents/chats), not only as “intent/roadmap”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://archai.gitbook.io/archai
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 is used for “intent without evidence”, but here there is a Tier‑1 description of a working AI surface layer (AI_1/AI_2).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the platform allows users to talk to AI agents in chats and combine several agents in one chat.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/talk-to-ai-agents
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 documentation directly describes AI agents and the interaction scenario.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): there is a public list of AI agents in the web application with whom a chat can be started.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://app.thearch.ai/all-agents ; https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/talk-to-ai-agents
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the presence of a web surface with a list of agents and a “Talk to AI Agents” section is sufficient as a demo surface.
  • 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 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no Tier‑1 metrics/context → 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 documentation describes the platform, working with agents and refers to Chaingraph as the basis for assembling agents.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://archai.gitbook.io/archai ; https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/talk-to-ai-agents
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a Tier‑1 description of the components and user workflow (albeit without a full technical specification of the model).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Base
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0xD3b0b58eC9516e4b875a075328E2CB059d4d54dB
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://basescan.org/token/0xD3b0b58eC9516e4b875a075328E2CB059d4d54dB
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the onchain fact of the token contract is confirmed by the 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 Tier‑1 (other than the token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are no Tier‑1 addresses/description of onchain logic other than the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: not established (no Tier‑1 description of the product).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a Tier‑1 justification of criticality, we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the token exists (ERC‑20 on Base).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://basescan.org/token/0xD3b0b58eC9516e4b875a075328E2CB059d4d54dB
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token is identified by the contract address.
  • 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): not established (no Tier‑1 description of payment utility).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a Tier‑1 description of utility, we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): not established (no Tier‑1).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no Tier‑1 description of incentives/collateral.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 describes that $ARCHAI staking provides influence over governance decisions and platform updates.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/staking
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): a direct Tier‑1 statement about a governance signal through staking is sufficient for TK_3=1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): not established (no Tier‑1 allowing replaceability to be assessed).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): with insufficient data, we set 0 (conservatively).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://basescan.org/token/0xD3b0b58eC9516e4b875a075328E2CB059d4d54dB The ERC‑20 token contract address on the Base network (onchain fact).
Tier‑1 https://archai.gitbook.io/archai Tier‑1 description of the ARCH AI platform and its purpose.
Tier‑1 https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/talk-to-ai-agents Describes interaction with AI agents in chats (what the AI does).
Tier‑1 https://app.thearch.ai/all-agents Available demo surface: a list of AI agents in the web application.
Tier‑1 https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/staking Tier‑1 description of $ARCHAI staking (governance signal and perks/access).
Tier‑1 https://archai.gitbook.io/archai/tokenomics Tier‑1 facts about supply/migration/burns (tokenomics).
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bad-coin/ Reference token profile (metadata, links).

No comments to display

Back to top