Skip to main content

Deri Protocol

Deri Protocol — 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).

Deri Protocol — a DeFi derivatives protocol (per the official docs) deployed on EVM networks; no Tier‑1 confirmation of an AI component was found in the project’s public materials.

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 protocol/application for trading derivatives (futures/options, etc.; per the docs).
  • Who it’s for: users of DeFi products and liquidity providers (per the structure of the docs sections).
  • Why onchain/token: onchain contracts ensure the execution of the protocol rules; the DERI token is used for governance and staking privileges (per the docs).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: opens positions/operations in the protocol interface.
  2. The system does: executes the trading logic via the protocol’s smart contracts (see the How it works section of the docs).
  3. The user gets: a position/result according to the protocol rules.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the key contracts and tokens are deployed onchain (see Evidence).
  5. Token role (if any): DERI is described as a governance and “privilege token” (staking for privileges; see Evidence).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Deri Protocol
Also known as (aliases) Deri; DERI
Logo (logo) ../assets/332_deri-protocol_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) DERI
Category DeFi
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 0x21e60ee73f17ac0a411ae5d690f908c3ed66fe12 (Arbitrum)
Token model (token_type) utility (governance)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 (ultimate; per the tokenomics)
Issuance inflationary (minting + mining; cap)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) 400M genesis + 600M mining (per the docs)
Governance DAO
Admins/keys —
Audit yes
Bug bounty yes
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) DeFi derivatives
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 2 / token_score 2 / evidence_score 2
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Deri Protocol, per the official documentation, is a DeFi protocol for trading derivatives and related mechanisms (margin trading, liquidations, oracles, etc.). The project provides user interfaces and a description of the architecture in the docs.

Within DecAIHub (focus: “what is real AI / what is truly onchain / why a token”), no confirmation of an AI component was found for the project per Tier‑1 sources.

Features/modules

  • Trading/positions: the Trading + How it works sections in the docs.
  • Protocol mechanics: DPMM, oracles, liquidations and other elements described in the docs.
  • Governance: the Deri Improvement Proposal (DIP) process in the docs.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user opens/closes a position → the protocol executes the calculations per onchain rules.
  • Scenario 2: a participant provides liquidity/participates in mining → receives accruals per the protocol rules (for details, see the docs).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: the protocol interface and an EVM‑type wallet (details in the docs).
  • Network/chain: the protocol and the token exist on several networks; this card records the DERI token address on Arbitrum (Tier‑1).
  • Fees: fees of the respective network.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the protocol’s smart contracts (the list of addresses and networks — in the docs).
  • Dependencies: oracles/trading mechanics are described in the docs (How it works).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Issuance/supply: the docs describe a cap of 1,000,000,000 and the split into preallocation and mining.
  • Token utility: governance and “privilege token” (staking to obtain privileges in the operation of the protocol; see Evidence).

Governance

  • Change process: the DIP (Deri Improvement Proposal) is described in the docs; the specific tools for voting/executing decisions require a separate review.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: the docs have a Code Audits section with links to the reports.
  • Bug bounty: a program on Immunefi is claimed (see links_*).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: mainnet (per the status of the applications/documentation).
  • Roadmap: GitHub milestones (links_*).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations/ecosystem: requires separate re‑checking (not recorded per Tier‑1).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? No Tier‑1 confirmation of the project’s AI component/AI intentions was found.
  • What is truly onchain? The protocol’s smart contracts and the DERI token are deployed onchain (the list of networks/addresses — in the docs).
  • Why is a token needed? In the tokenomics, DERI is described for governance and as a “privilege token” (staking for privileges).
  • Red flags / what to double‑check: do not mix “DeFi” and “AI” without Tier‑1; for an AI assessment, explicit Tier‑1 artifacts about AI are needed.

DecAI Fit flags (0/1) and calculation

  • AI: AI_0=0; AI_1=0; AI_2 (decision): 0; AI_3=0; AI_4=0 → ai_score=0
  • Onchain: OC_1=1; OC_2=1; OC_3=0 → onchain_score=2
  • Token: TK_0=0; TK_1=0; TK_2=1; TK_3=1; TK_4=0 → token_score=2
  • Evidence: E_AI_T1=0; E_OC_T1=1; E_TK_T1=1; E_only_T3=0 → evidence_score=2
  • Summary: ai_score=0 ⇒ DecAI Fit=0/6

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 medium 2
Token necessity medium 2
Evidence Tier‑1 present (not for AI) 2
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 statements/roadmap about AI intentions are recorded.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a Tier‑1 source about AI intent, the flag remains 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 description of an AI component in the product/protocol was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the project is described as a DeFi derivatives protocol; the AI part is not confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the demo relates to the DeFi protocol; an AI demo is not applicable (the AI component is not confirmed).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_2 applies to AI artifacts; without an AI component, the flag is 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): AI quality metrics are absent, since the AI component is not confirmed.
  • 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.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the AI architecture is not recorded, hence 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Arbitrum One (and other networks per the list)
  • Addresses/identifiers: the list of protocol contracts is published in the docs (see Evidence).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.deri.io/library/list-of-smart-contracts
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the Tier‑1 docs publish the onchain addresses of the contracts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: the derivatives trading logic is implemented via the protocol’s smart contracts (protocol level, not just the token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.deri.io/how-it-works/architecture
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the official How it works section describes the protocol components/logic on top of the contracts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: within this card, it is not proven that replacing the blockchain with an ordinary server breaks a key property (in SSOT terms).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no Tier‑1 “blockchain‑critical” argument per the replacement test, hence 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the DERI token exists (multichain).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.deri.io/library/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the tokenomics publishes the token addresses per network and describes the issuance.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_1 — payment for the service (1/0)

  • TK_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the tokenomics does not record that DERI is a mandatory means of payment for the basic service.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.deri.io/library/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): a governance/privilege role is described, but “payment for the service” as a necessity is not confirmed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): DERI is used in staking to obtain privileges (privilege token) and in mechanics around participation.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.deri.io/library/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the tokenomics describes staking and the “privilege token” as an economic mechanism.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): governance voting is tied to the DERI token (described as governance in the tokenomics).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.deri.io/library/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 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): No Tier‑1 argument about full replaceability of the token without loss of meaning was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a Tier‑1 justification of replaceability/irreplaceability, the flag remains 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://docs.deri.io/library/tokenomics Tier‑1: description of the tokenomics (cap 1B; preallocation+mining; governance/privilege utility).
Tier‑1 https://docs.deri.io/library/list-of-smart-contracts Tier‑1: the list of networks/addresses of the protocol’s smart contracts (including Arbitrum).
Tier‑1 https://docs.deri.io/library/code-audits Tier‑1: links to audit reports/audit pages.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the protocol has an AI component/AI intentions” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top