Skip to main content

DeAgentAI

DeAgentAI (AIA) — 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).

DeAgentAI — an AI/Agents | Infra project: infrastructure for “trusted on-chain intelligence” for AI agents + the AIA token (BEP‑20, BNB Smart Chain).

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: infrastructure for trusted Web3 AI agents (the project calls it an “Autonomous Execution Network”): an attempt to solve “determinism vs probabilistic AI outputs” via identity/continuity/consensus and secured execution of actions.
  • Who it’s for: teams/developers who want to build autonomous onchain agents (DeFi strategies, onchain games, governance automation), and users/stakers who participate in the network economy.
  • Why onchain/token: the blockchain and MPC are used for verifiable and distributed execution of sensitive actions; the $AIA token is described as a means of payment for agent services, staking/rewards and governance.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): detailed GitBook docs (architecture, tokenomics, staking) + the AIA token contract on BscScan.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: calls an AI agent/service (creation/subscription/invocation) and (per the tokenomics model) pays for it in $AIA.
  2. The agent does: makes a decision (Lobe/Brain) and forms the “canonical result” of the interaction.
  3. The network does: validates the result via the DeAgent consensus process (at the concept level in the docs).
  4. Execution (MPC): a group of participants jointly generates a signature/authorization (MPC) in order to execute the onchain action without a single key holder.
  5. Token role: $AIA — payment for services, staking for rewards and participation in governance (per the docs).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name DeAgentAI
Also known as (aliases) DeAgent; Autonomous Execution Network; $AIA; AIA
Logo (logo) ../assets/101_deagentai_logo.jpg
Token symbol (ticker) AIA
Category AI/Agents | Infra
Primary chain (chain) BNB Smart Chain
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoSA (BNB Smart Chain; 21 validators)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) BEP-20
Token contract 0x53EC33Cd4fA46b9ecED9cA3f6dB626C5FfCd55cC
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking + governance)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 (per the docs); onchain max total supply (BSC) = 200,000,000
Issuance vesting/distribution (per the tokenomics); a buyback mechanism (deflationary) is claimed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) $AIA for paying for agent services; staking; governance; part of the supply is allocated to community/ecosystem.
Governance “foundation governance” via $AIA voting (per the docs)
Admins/keys an MPC setup is described for sensitive actions; specific onchain keys/thresholds not extracted
Audit yes
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) trusted on-chain agents (identity/continuity/consensus)
Use‑case (use_case) autonomous on-chain execution for 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 its Tier‑1 documentation, DeAgentAI describes the concept of onchain agents and introduces three components: Consensus (result verification), Identity (agent state/identity), Continuity (memory/history).

The solution is described as infrastructure for “trusted AI Agents” (Autonomous Execution Network) and a set of architectural components (Lobe/Brain, Memory/Tools, Agent‑to‑Agent, MPC execution) aimed at executing onchain actions without a single point of control.

Features/modules

  • Identity/Continuity/Consensus: the “three pillars” of trust in agents (a declarative goal).
  • Lobe (Brain): the agent’s decision-making layer (per the architecture).
  • Memory & Tools: state/tools as the “personality”.
  • Agent‑to‑Agent protocol: interaction between agents.
  • MPC trustless execution: distributed signing/authorization of actions without any single participant holding the full key.
  • $AIA tokenomics: payment for services, staking, governance, buyback mechanism.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user calls an AI agent for a task (DeFi/game/governance) → the network validates the result → the MPC layer executes the onchain action.
  • Scenario 2: a user/the community stakes $AIA → receives rewards and (per the model) participates in ensuring reliability/validation.
  • Scenario 3: a $AIA holder votes on parameters/the direction of development (foundation governance).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: a web3 wallet for operations with $AIA and access to onchain activities; for developers — the project’s documentation/repositories.
  • Network/chain: $AIA (BEP‑20) — BNB Smart Chain.
  • Fees: BNB Smart Chain fees for transfers/staking/contract calls; additional service fees are possible (if paid in $AIA).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the onchain $AIA token (BSC); the agent’s offchain layers (decisions/memory/tools); a consensus layer over “canonical results” (described conceptually); an MPC group for signing/executing actions.
  • Participant roles: users/agent creators; “committers” (in the MPC context) and participants who jointly authorize execution.
  • Where logic runs: AI decisions/orchestration — offchain; transaction execution — onchain via MPC signing.
  • Dependencies: BSC RPC; MPC infrastructure; agent/bridge smart contracts (audits are mentioned, but addresses were not extracted into the card).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility (Tier‑1): $AIA — a means of payment for agent creation/subscriptions/invocation and premium features; staking; governance.
  • Staking (Tier‑1): a multi-layer system of pools is described (Dynamic Rewards Hub / Golden Shovel Pool / Community Arena).
  • Deflationary layer (Tier‑1): a buyback mechanism is claimed: part of the revenue goes to buying back $AIA from the market.
  • Supply/distribution (Tier‑1): total supply 1B in the docs with allocations (community+ecosystem 58.2%); the onchain supply on BSC per the explorer differs (see Evidence).
  • Who pays fees: BSC users for onchain operations; separately (per the model) service payments in $AIA.
  • Incentive mechanisms: staking rewards and gaming/competitive mechanics inside the staking pools (per the docs).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: “foundation governance” is claimed: $AIA holders vote on key decisions and parameters (Tier‑1).
  • How protocol parameters change: via governance decisions (the procedure is not detailed in the extracted pages).
  • Where: docs + the project’s social channels.
  • Keys/multisig: an MPC approach is described for executing actions; specific addresses/threshold not extracted in this card.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: Tier‑1 lists reports (AlphaX, token contract, bridge contract).
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: risks to the correctness of consensus over “canonical results”; offchain agent risks; risks of MPC participants/compromise of shares; bridge risks (if used).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the $AIA token exists on BSC; documentation and repositories are active.
  • Key releases/milestones: releases in links_* (GitHub Releases).
  • Roadmap: see links_* (roadmap).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: BNB Smart Chain for the token; bridges/contracts are mentioned in the context of audits.
  • Partners: — (no Tier‑1 confirmation recorded).
  • Where it’s actually used: Tier‑1 records the design and the tokenomic model; production cases require a separate sampling of sources.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the project describes AI agents as a system that makes decisions and interacts with Web3, with Lobe/Brain and memory/tools components.
  • What is truly onchain? the $AIA token is confirmed onchain; onchain execution of actions is described via MPC signing and transaction submission.
  • Why is a token needed? Tier‑1 claims $AIA as payment for services, a staking instrument and a governance vote.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): possible onchain‑washing (if the agents’ onchain logic beyond the token is not confirmed by addresses/contracts); what to double‑check: the protocol’s specific onchain contracts, MPC parameters (threshold/composition) and the actual “continuity/onchain memory” implementation.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 2
Onchain necessity medium 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): the AI layer is described as a working architecture/product mission, so “intent only” does not apply.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 is used only if AI_1..AI_4 = 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): AI agents perform tasks and form decisions that can then lead to onchain actions.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai ; https://deagent-ai.gitbook.io/whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 directly describes AI agents and the mission/architecture.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a public demo/agent application is not recorded within the current Tier‑1 links.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a link to a working demo we set 0.
  • 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): quality metrics/benchmarks for the AI part are not provided in the extracted Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the architecture of trustless execution via MPC and the high-level structure of the components are described.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/technical-architecture/mpc-trustless-execution
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 provides a technical description of the key execution mechanism.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: BNB Smart Chain
  • Addresses/identifiers: AIA (BEP‑20) 0x53EC33Cd4fA46b9ecED9cA3f6dB626C5FfCd55cC
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://bscscan.com/token/0x53EC33Cd4fA46b9ecED9cA3f6dB626C5FfCd55cC
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the explorer confirms the contract, decimals and max supply on BSC.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: Tier‑1 addresses of protocol contracts beyond the token are not recorded.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without specific onchain artifacts beyond the token we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: the necessity of onchain for the core mechanics (identity/continuity/consensus) is claimed, but not proven by specific onchain contracts in this card.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): it remains at the level of a description, without a check of “what breaks” — 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, $AIA (BEP‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://bscscan.com/token/0x53EC33Cd4fA46b9ecED9cA3f6dB626C5FfCd55cC
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token contract is publicly confirmed by the explorer.
  • 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): $AIA is used as a means of payment for network services (agent creation/subscription/invocation, premium features).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/tokenomics/the-value-flywheel-for-an-autonomous-ai-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 directly lists the utility as a “medium of exchange for network services”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): staking $AIA yields rewards and is positioned as a contribution to network security/validation.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/tokenomics/staking-mechanisms
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes the staking pools and their purpose.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): $AIA holders vote on key decisions and parameters of “foundation governance”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/tokenomics/the-value-flywheel-for-an-autonomous-ai-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): governance is listed among the $AIA utilities.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the replaceability of $AIA is neither proven nor refuted by Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/tokenomics/the-value-flywheel-for-an-autonomous-ai-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the utility is described, but there is no explicit replaceability test.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai Mission/problem statement of “trusted AI agents”, the Identity/Continuity/Consensus theses.
Tier‑1 https://deagent-ai.gitbook.io/whitepaper Whitepaper: positioning as an AI Agent Incentive Protocol / fine‑tuning platform.
Tier‑1 https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/technical-architecture/mpc-trustless-execution The MPC mechanism of trustless execution for onchain actions.
Tier‑1 https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/tokenomics/the-value-flywheel-for-an-autonomous-ai-economy Utility of $AIA, supply (1B), distribution, buyback mechanism.
Tier‑1 https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/tokenomics/staking-mechanisms Architecture of $AIA staking (pools/mechanics).
Tier‑1 https://bscscan.com/token/0x53EC33Cd4fA46b9ecED9cA3f6dB626C5FfCd55cC Onchain fact of the AIA token on BSC (address/decimals/max supply).
Tier‑1 https://deagentai.gitbook.io/deagentai/project-strength-and-security/technical-safeguards-and-third-party-audits List of audit reports (AlphaX/token/bridge) and links to them.

No comments to display

Back to top