Skip to main content

Blade Games

Blade Games — 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).

Blade Games — a Gaming project on the Arbitrum One network, token (symbol: BLADE).

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 game/gaming project with the BLADE token on the Arbitrum One network.
  • Who it’s for: players and participants of the project’s ecosystem.
  • Why onchain/token: the token exists onchain; the purpose of the token is not established per Tier‑1.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: interacts with the project’s game/products.
  2. The system does: executes the game logic (details not extracted).
  3. The user gets: a game result/access/interaction (not established).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the BLADE token and its transfers/balances on the Arbitrum One network (contract in Evidence).
  5. Token role (if any): the role/utility of the token is not established per Tier‑1 sources.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Blade Games
Also known as (aliases) BLADE
Logo (logo) ../assets/494_blade-games_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) BLADE
Category Gaming
Primary chain (chain) Arbitrum One
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) L2 (Optimistic Rollup, Arbitrum One on Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xE8B201BE5357c07F0Aa58693F98FB048323777f9
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) —
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 ai_score 0 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 1
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Blade Games is a game/gaming project with the BLADE token on the Arbitrum One network. Per Tier‑1 sources, it is not established whether the product has a verifiable AI component and how exactly the token is used in the game/protocol mechanics.

Features/modules

  • — (not extracted)

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a player interacts with the product → receives a result (not established).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: a wallet/account (if required by the product).
  • Network/chain: Arbitrum One.
  • Fees: Arbitrum One network fees (gas) for onchain operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the token contract (see Evidence) + the offchain part of the product (details not established).
  • Participant roles: players/users (the rest is not established).
  • Where logic runs: onchain — the token; the remaining logic — not established.
  • Dependencies: —.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: not established per Tier‑1.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: not established per Tier‑1.
  • Who pays fees: users for onchain operations with the token.
  • Where fees go: to the network validators/sequencer (gas).
  • Issuance/burn: —.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: —.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: —.
  • Treasury: —.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: —.
  • How protocol parameters change: —.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: —.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (product details not established).
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: see links_* (as navigation).

Ecosystem/integrations

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

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? No confirmation of a working AI component/demo/metrics was found per Tier‑1.
  • What is truly onchain? The BLADE token on the Arbitrum One network (contract in Evidence).
  • Why is a token needed? The purpose of the token is not established per Tier‑1.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): claims about “AI” without Tier‑1 artifacts; onchain boils down to the token without described useful logic.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
Component Level Score
AI reality no Tier‑1 data 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): No Tier‑1 confirmation of AI intentions (roadmap/official update) was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a Tier‑1 roadmap/update, intent=1 cannot be set.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 description of what exactly the AI component does was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a specific Tier‑1 description of the AI feature we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 demos/examples (App/Demo/Quickstart) were found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a Tier‑1 demo/guide we do not raise the flag.
  • 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 Tier‑1 AI quality metrics/benchmarks were found.
  • 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 the AI architecture/versions was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a tech description/architecture per Tier‑1 we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Arbitrum One
  • Addresses/identifiers: token contract 0xE8B201BE5357c07F0Aa58693F98FB048323777f9
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://arbiscan.io/token/0xE8B201BE5357c07F0Aa58693F98FB048323777f9
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is an onchain artifact (the token contract) and a network/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 (other than the token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of a token by itself does not prove useful onchain logic.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

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

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, BLADE (contract in Evidence).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://arbiscan.io/token/0xE8B201BE5357c07F0Aa58693F98FB048323777f9
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The onchain token contract confirms that the token exists.
  • 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 that the token is used to pay for the service was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without tech docs/terms of use per Tier‑1 we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 confirmation of incentives/collateral/penalties via the token was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a description of the incentive mechanics per Tier‑1 we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 confirmation of governance via the token was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a described governance process (DAO/voting) per Tier‑1 we set 0.
  • 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 (no Tier‑1 argument).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 materials on the utility/mechanics are needed to assess replaceability.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://arbiscan.io/token/0xE8B201BE5357c07F0Aa58693F98FB048323777f9 The BLADE token contract on the Arbitrum One network (address: 0xE8B201BE5357c07F0Aa58693F98FB048323777f9).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “there is a working AI component / demo / metrics” was found.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the role of the token in the product/protocol” was found.
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/blade-2 Token profile (for reference; navigation).
Tier‑3 — —

No comments to display

Back to top