Skip to main content

BitClave

BitClave — 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).

BitClave — a project/organization with public repositories of smart contracts and tooling (Tier‑1 GitHub); 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 set of BASE platform components (node + client SDK + demo dApp) for working with encrypted user data and a data access request protocol; plus a set of smart contracts, including the ERC‑20 CAT token.
  • Who it’s for: developers/integrators who need an SDK/Node to work with BASE; users who store and share data via the access request protocol.
  • Why onchain/token: the ERC‑20 CAT token contract is confirmed; no Tier‑1 confirmation that BASE has any other onchain logic (other than the token) was found (see Evidence).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The developer does: integrates base-client-js and/or spins up base-node (per the repositories) to work with data and access requests.
  2. The system does: stores data in encrypted form; access to data is granted/denied via the API per the access request protocol.
  3. The user gets: an interface/flow for adding data and managing access (example — the demo dApp).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the onchain artifact is confirmed for the CAT token (Ethereum). The use of onchain in the BASE protocol, other than the token, is not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  5. Token role: not confirmed by Tier‑1 in the public repositories/documentation (see Evidence).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name BitClave
Also known as (aliases) —
Logo (logo) ../assets/683_bitclave_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) CAT
Category Infra
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) —
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x1234567461d3f8db7496581774bd869c83d51c93
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Not confirmed by Tier‑1 (no description of the model of token usage in the product was found in the public repositories/documentation).
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) —
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
DecAI Fit component summary 0 / 1 / 0 / 1
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Per Tier‑1 sources (the official GitHub repositories), the project includes BASE platform components: base-node (the Node component), base-client-js (the client library), a demo dApp, as well as services/modules for the platform (for example, base-matcher for matchmaking offers and search requests).

The demo dApp and the SDK describe a flow where user data is encrypted on the client side, and access to data is granted via an access request protocol (approve/deny). Separately, the ERC‑20 CAT token and the repository of the token/crowdsale smart contracts are confirmed, including the OpenZeppelin Security audit of the token contracts.

Features/modules

  • base-node: the BASE Node component (API implementation).
  • base-client-js: the client library for interacting with BASE.
  • base-client-demo: a demo dApp showing the login/data/access request flow.
  • base-matcher: the module for matchmaking offers and search requests in BASE.
  • The CAT token smart contracts (including CAToken.sol).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user adds/updates data pairs in BASE via the demo dApp (the data is encrypted on the client).
  • Scenario 2: an entity requests access to the user’s data via the API; the user approves/denies; upon approval the data is shared only with the request initiator.
  • Scenario 3: the matchmaking service matches search requests with offers and writes the results back to BASE.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: the SDK/Node from the official repositories; for the dev environment, the instructions mention a local blockchain (ganache) and Postgres for base-node.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum (per the token contract).
  • Fees: for the Ethereum token, the standard Ethereum network fees apply; fees/payments at the BASE protocol level are not confirmed by Tier‑1.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: base-node (API), base-client-js (client library), demo dApp, base-matcher (matchmaking), auth SDK/widget.
  • Participant roles: users (data owners), integrators/partners (use the SDK), platform services/modules (for example, matcher).
  • Where logic runs: encryption — on the client; data exchange — via the base-node API; matchmaking — in a separate module (matcher).
  • Dependencies: the dev instructions mention ganache (a local blockchain) and Postgres for base-node.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: not confirmed by Tier‑1 (no description of the token’s role in the product flows was found in the available BASE repositories).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Who pays fees: Ethereum network fees are paid by the senders of CAT token transactions; other payments/fees in BASE are not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Where fees go: to the miners/validators of the Ethereum network (standard gas logic).
  • Issuance/burn: not confirmed by Tier‑1 in the available sources.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: at the token level, standard mechanisms (pausable, minting) are present in the contract code; an economic incentive model for the product is not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Treasury: not confirmed by Tier‑1.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • How protocol parameters change: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Keys/multisig: not confirmed by Tier‑1.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: there is a public OpenZeppelin Security audit of the CAT token contracts (no critical/high severity per the report).
  • Bug bounty: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Incidents: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Threat model: partially described via encryption/access control practices (client‑side encryption, approve/deny), but a formal threat model is not confirmed by Tier‑1.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Key releases/milestones: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Roadmap: No Tier‑1 roadmap found.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Partners: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Where it’s actually used: not confirmed by Tier‑1.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? Per Tier‑1 sources, no confirmation of an AI component or AI intent/roadmap was found.
  • What is truly onchain? The token contract in the Ethereum explorer.
  • Why is a token needed? Not confirmed by Tier‑1 (no description of the necessity of the token for the product was found in the available sources).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): there is a token, but a Tier‑1 description of its role in the product is not identified; the product’s onchain logic other than the token is not confirmed by Tier‑1.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
Component Level Score
AI reality low 0
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity low 0
Evidence Tier‑1 partial 1
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 AI intent/roadmap is not identified in the available official repositories/documentation.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave ; https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitclave/base-client-demo/master/README.md
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the Tier‑1 sources describe data/search/matchmaking and the SDK, but an AI component is not claimed as an intent.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 confirmation of an AI component was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): An AI component is not established.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No demo of an AI component was found (an AI component is not established).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no subject of AI verification.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: not found (an AI component is not established).
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI metrics are absent.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 tech description of an AI component was found (the AI component is not established).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no AI architecture/model versions were found in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 token: 0x1234567461d3f8db7496581774bd869c83d51c93
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x1234567461d3f8db7496581774bd869c83d51c93
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a Tier‑1 onchain artifact (the token contract at the link).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: not confirmed by Tier‑1 (other than the ERC‑20 token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the product’s onchain logic other than the token is not established.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): onchain criticality is not proven.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has an ERC‑20 token, CAT (Consumer Activity Token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x1234567461d3f8db7496581774bd869c83d51c93 ; https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitclave/crowdsale/master/contracts/CAToken.sol
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the onchain artifact (the token contract) and the contract source code confirm the existence of the token.
  • 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): Tier‑1 confirmation of payment for a specific service with the CAT token is not identified.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no description of pay‑per‑service token mechanics was found in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 confirmation of incentives/collateral/penalties with the CAT token in the protocol is not identified.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no incentives/slashing rules were found in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 confirmation of a governance role of the CAT token is not identified.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no description of governance tied to the token was found in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • 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 confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/bitclave
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the available Tier‑1 sources contain no argument “why the token is mandatory/or replaceable”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://github.com/bitclave Tier‑1 artifact: the organization and repositories (smart contracts/tooling).
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x1234567461d3f8db7496581774bd869c83d51c93 Onchain artifact: the token contract at the link.
Tier‑1 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitclave/base-client-demo/master/README.md Demo dApp flow: client‑side data encryption and the access request protocol (approve/deny).
Tier‑1 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitclave/base-matcher/master/README.md The existence of a matchmaking process in BASE: offers ↔ search requests.
Tier‑1 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitclave/crowdsale/master/contracts/CAToken.sol Tier‑1 artifact: the CAT token source code (symbol/name/decimals).
Tier‑1 https://blog.openzeppelin.com/bitclave-token-audit-570b0c664eb0 OpenZeppelin Security audit of the CAT token contracts (no critical/high severity per the report).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “there is an AI component/AI intent” was found.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “role of the token in the protocol (TK_1..TK_3)” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top