Skip to main content

Chasm

Chasm — 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).

Chasm — an AI/Agents | Infra project on the Ethereum network, token (symbol: CAI).

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 ecosystem/platform for creating and launching AI agents that work on tasks around onchain data and Web3 actions (per the project’s claims).
  • Who it’s for: users who want to run “agents” for their own tasks, and developers/creators of agents.
  • Why onchain/token: the CAI token is claimed as the utility token of the ecosystem (access/payments/rewards/registration), while the onchain part is confirmed by the presence of an ERC‑20 contract and claims about the network/protocol.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): the public Scout interface: https://scout.chasm.net.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: uses the ecosystem’s interface/services (for example, Scout) or creates an agent for a task.
  2. The system does: runs/coordinates the work of the “agents” and their interaction with data/resources (per the project documentation).
  3. The user gets: a result in the form of actions/analytics/agent scenarios (the format depends on the specific agent/module).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the onchain artifact in the current set of sources is the ERC‑20 contract of the CAI token on Ethereum; verifiable addresses/contracts of the protocol’s onchain logic (other than the token) are not identified.
  5. Token role: the documentation claims the roles of CAI: access/payments/rewards/registration/governance (see Evidence).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Chasm
Also known as (aliases) Chasm Network
Logo (logo) ../assets/592_chasm-ai_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) CAI
Category AI/Agents | Infra
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 0x19247618D79E3fc4d4866169789E4B8eEDef52E6
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 CAI
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Tier‑1 docs: total supply 1B; distribution (in the docs): Investors 15% (6m cliff, 2y vesting), Team 20% (1y cliff, 3y vesting), Treasury 15% (unlock via DAO voting), Scouts 50% (mining emission); note: the tokenomics may change.
Governance claimed: token governance
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) builder/platform for AI agents (Weave/Scout)
Use‑case (use_case) create, launch + interact with AI agents
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 2 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 3 / evidence_score 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

In Tier‑1 sources, Chasm describes an ecosystem for creating, deploying and “monetizing” AI agents, as well as a set of related modules (for example, Scout and the IDE/builder Weave). The main value claimed in the documentation is to give the user/creator of “agents” an interface and infrastructure where agents can interact with resources and with each other.

At the same time, per Tier‑1 no separate set of onchain contracts/addresses of the “protocol” (other than the ERC‑20 CAI token) is identified, so the onchain part of the assessment remains conservative: the token on Ethereum is confirmed, while the rest requires additional verifiable artifacts.

Features/modules

  • Scout: the public interface/surface of the product (see links_*).
  • Ecosystem documentation: description of participant roles and the claimed functions of the CAI token.
  • Weave (claimed): a builder/IDE for AI agents and for working with resources.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user launches a Scout session → receives results/answers from an agent for the task.
  • Scenario 2: a creator/developer studies the docs and builds their own agent/integration → publishes/uses it in the ecosystem (per the project’s claims).
  • Scenario 3: a network participant performs the “scout/worker” role → receives rewards in the CAI token (per the documentation).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: access to the Scout interface and (if interaction with the token is required) an EVM wallet.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum (for the CAI token as ERC‑20).
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees for ERC‑20 operations (if the user performs them).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the Scout web interface; ecosystem documentation; the CAI ERC‑20 contract on Ethereum.
  • Participant roles (per the docs): users, “builders”, “scouts”, “orchestrators” (terms from the documentation).
  • Where logic runs: the operation of the AI agents/service is not confirmed as onchain; the onchain artifact in the verified sources is the CAI token.
  • Dependencies: — (not singled out as verifiable “protocol dependencies”, other than Ethereum for the token).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility (per the docs): access to resources/services, payments within the ecosystem, registration fees, rewards to participants, participation in governance.
  • Incentive mechanisms (per the docs): a “scout reward system” and the issuance/distribution of rewards are described (the parameters are claimed as changeable).
  • Issuance/distribution: the documentation gives the shares (investors/team/treasury/scouts) and vesting caveats, but with a note about possible changes.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: the Tier‑1 documentation claims participation of CAI holders in governance; a separate governance process/page and verifiable onchain governance mechanics are not singled out as confirmed artifacts.

Security and incidents

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

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: an active product/ecosystem (based on the presence of a public interface and documentation).
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations/partners: — (we do not record them without verifiable Tier‑1 confirmations).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the project describes an ecosystem of AI agents and tools for creating/using them (Scout/Weave) per the Tier‑1 documentation.
  • What is truly onchain? the ERC‑20 contract of the CAI token on Ethereum is confirmed; separate onchain contracts of the “protocol” (other than the token) are not established per Tier‑1.
  • Why is a token needed? in the Tier‑1 documentation, CAI is claimed as a token for access/payments/rewards/registration and participation in governance.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): mixing “descriptions of future capabilities” with “already working mechanisms”; absence in this card of a set of verifiable onchain addresses/contracts of the protocol (other than the ERC‑20); absence of AI/agent quality metrics (AI_3=0).

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 2
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity high 3
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 the current essence of the product/ecosystem (not only a roadmap intent).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/ ; https://www.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): We apply AI_0 only when there is Tier‑1 “intent” but no confirmation of a described AI component; here AI is claimed as part of the current product.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): An ecosystem for creating/deploying/using AI agents (including Scout and the builder/IDE Weave).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/ ; https://www.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 sources directly describe the purpose of the platform as an AI agent ecosystem and list the modules.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): There is a public Scout interface that can be launched to get a result from an agent.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://scout.chasm.net ; https://www.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The presence of a public “touch surface” (Scout) is sufficient as a demonstration/usage example.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No reproducible quality metrics/benchmarks of the AI agents were found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A tech description of the architecture/versions of the AI models/agents at a level sufficient for 1 is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There are descriptions of modules and terms, but no formalized tech description/versioning of the AI component was found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 CAI: 0x19247618D79E3fc4d4866169789E4B8eEDef52E6
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x19247618D79E3fc4d4866169789E4B8eEDef52E6
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The presence of an onchain contract and a token page in the explorer is sufficient for OC_1=1.
  • 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 issuance/existence of the CAI token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/ ; https://www.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No verifiable onchain contracts/addresses of protocol logic, other than the ERC‑20 token, were found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: it is not established that the product “breaks down” without the blockchain (only the token is confirmed in the verified sources).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): OC_3=1 requires a Tier‑1 justification “why a key property breaks down without onchain” + verifiable artifacts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, CAI (ERC‑20 on Ethereum).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x19247618D79E3fc4d4866169789E4B8eEDef52E6 ; https://network-docs.chasm.net/entering-chasm/cai-token
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The presence of the contract and the token documentation 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): 1
  • Claim (one line): The documentation claims that CAI is used as an access/payment token for resources and work in the ecosystem.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/entering-chasm/cai-token
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 documentation directly describes CAI as a payment/access token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The documentation describes rewards to participants (scout reward system) and a “mining reward pool”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/entering-chasm/cai-token
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source describes payouts/rewards in CAI for network participants.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The documentation claims participation of CAI holders in governance.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/entering-chasm/cai-token
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source directly describes the governance utility of the token.
  • 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 (the docs list functions, but “replacement without loss of meaning” is not separately justified).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://network-docs.chasm.net/entering-chasm/cai-token
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): TK_4=1 requires a direct justification/comparison with an alternative (for example, “the same can be done with USDC/a subscription without loss of meaning”).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://network-docs.chasm.net/ Tier‑1 description of the AI agent ecosystem (purpose/roles/terms).
Tier‑1 https://www.chasm.net/ Product claim: creation/deployment/monetization of AI agents; the presence of the public Scout.
Tier‑1 https://scout.chasm.net “Touch surface” of the product: the ability to launch Scout (AI_2=1).
Tier‑1 https://network-docs.chasm.net/entering-chasm/cai-token The role of the CAI token (access/payment/governance/rewards) and basic parameters (total supply 1B).
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x19247618D79E3fc4d4866169789E4B8eEDef52E6 Onchain fact: the ERC‑20 CAI token on Ethereum, the contract and max total supply.

No comments to display

Back to top