Skip to main content

Eternal AI

Eternal AI (EAI) — 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).

Eternal AI — an AI/Compute / AI/Inference / AI/Agents project: the whitepaper describes a “decentralized AI network” protocol with Proof‑of‑Compute, where a network of nodes/agents executes AI prompts and verifiers can dispute/slash dishonest results. The website also presents a privacy‑first AI image and video generator/editor. Token: EAI (ERC‑20 on Ethereum per Etherscan).

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 network/platform where users pay for the execution of AI tasks and nodes receive rewards (described in the whitepaper); plus a web product for media generation/editing.
  • Who it’s for: creators/users of AI content; developers; node operators (agents/verifiers).
  • Why onchain/token: onchain is needed for the accounting of the token and incentives (payments/rewards/stake/slashing in the protocol design).
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): web tools for image/video generation/editing on the project website + the whitepaper.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: submits a prompt (e.g., a text/image/video task) and pays for its execution (whitepaper).
  2. The system does: randomly assigns the prompt to several AI agents, accepts the first responses and organizes verification/disputes via verifiers (whitepaper).
  3. The user gets: the inference result; node operators — rewards for compute/verification.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the protocol describes coordination via smart contracts and onchain incentives; in the extracted Tier‑1, the EAI ERC‑20 token on Ethereum is confirmed.
  5. Token role (if any): payments for prompts + rewards to agents and verifiers; stake/slashing in the protocol design.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Eternal AI
Also known as (aliases) EAI, EternalAI
Logo (logo) —
Token symbol (ticker) EAI
Category AI/Compute | AI/Inference | AI/Agents
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 0xa84f95eb3dabdc1bbd613709ef5f2fd42ce5be8d
Token model (token_type) utility (governance)
Max supply 104,767,636.599787684114489467 EAI (Etherscan)
Issuance fixed (per Etherscan max total supply)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) pay‑per‑prompt + rewards to agents/verifiers (whitepaper)
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) Proof-of-Compute network for AI agents
Use‑case (use_case) decentralized AI inference
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 3 / 1 / 2 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

The Eternal AI website positions the product as privacy‑first “private‑by‑default” AI tools (image/video generation + editor) and private API access to several model providers. At the same time, the whitepaper describes a more “crypto‑protocol” design: a network of independent AI agents performing computations on prompts, with an economy of rewards and verification.

Features/modules

  • Private AI tools: image and video generation/editing (website).
  • Private API: “one key” for routing requests to different models/providers (website).
  • Proof‑of‑Compute protocol: the roles of AI agents / verifiers / creators / users, distribution of rewards and dispute/slashing (whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user generates/edits media → receives a “private‑by‑default” result (website).
  • Scenario 2: a developer sends a request via the private API → receives a response from the selected provider/model (website).
  • Scenario 3: a user submits a prompt to the protocol → an agent performs the computation, verifiers check it and rewards are distributed (whitepaper).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an account/access to the web product; for the token — an EVM wallet.
  • Network/chain: the EAI token — Ethereum (ERC‑20).
  • Fees: onchain token transactions require gas in ETH; the cost of inference/subscriptions — per the service rules (not disclosed in figures in the extracted Tier‑1).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the web interface of the generator/editor; the protocol design in the whitepaper (smart contract + a network of agents/verifiers); the EAI token on Ethereum.
  • Participant roles: users (prompts), AI agents (compute), AI verifiers (verification/disputes), AI creators (publishing models) (whitepaper).
  • Where logic runs: compute on nodes (offchain); coordination/incentives are described as onchain; in this card only the EAI token on Ethereum is confirmed.
  • Dependencies: the whitepaper mentions storing models in decentralized networks (e.g., Filecoin/Arweave) and containerization (COG).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: in the protocol design, users pay for prompts; agents and verifiers receive rewards (whitepaper).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the token is the unit of incentives (fees/rewards/stake/slashing) in the Proof‑of‑Compute mechanics.
  • Who pays fees: users (fees per prompt); onchain gas — participants during transactions.
  • Where fees go: part of the fees — to agents/verifiers/model creators (whitepaper).
  • Issuance/burn: for the EAI ERC‑20 token on Ethereum, a max total supply is listed (Etherscan); the issuance mechanics at the protocol level are described in general terms in the whitepaper.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: stake and slashing are described for the honesty of agents/verifiers; dispute mechanics with “fraud‑detection rewards” (whitepaper).
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: — (the extracted whitepaper fragment contains no specific percentages/vesting).
  • 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: the risk of a “design without addresses” (the protocol is described, but onchain contracts/addresses are not provided); the risk of a mismatch between the “decentralized network” in the whitepaper and the web product on the website.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the web product is available on the website; the EAI token exists on Ethereum.
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: — (there is no list in the extracted Tier‑1).
  • Partners: —.
  • Where it’s actually used: —.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the whitepaper describes a protocol for the execution of AI prompts by a network of AI agents (text/image/music/data analysis examples) and the roles of nodes; the website has an interface for image and video generation/editing.
  • What is truly onchain? the EAI ERC‑20 token on Ethereum is confirmed onchain; the smart contracts of the “prompt submission” protocol itself are without addresses in the extracted Tier‑1.
  • Why is a token needed? as the unit of payment for compute and as the mechanism of incentives/stake/slashing in the network (whitepaper).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): the gap between “Bitcoin L2 / BVM” in the whitepaper and the fact that in this card the token is confirmed on Ethereum; no addresses of protocol contracts; no inference quality metrics.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality high 3
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity medium 2
Evidence Tier‑1 present 3
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): not applicable: there is a description of AI functions/architecture (AI_1/AI_2/AI_4).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • 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): the protocol describes the execution of AI prompts by a network of nodes (AI agents) and the delivery of the output to the user (whitepaper).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a specific description of “prompt → compute → output” and of the network roles.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the website offers an interface for image/video generation/editing (“Imagine anything”).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a public product interface with generation/editing examples.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: — (there are no benchmarks/quality metrics for inference/verification in the extracted Tier‑1).
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no quantitative metrics with context.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the whitepaper describes the Proof‑of‑Compute architecture (prompts, agents, verifiers, disputes/slashing) and the protocol flow.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a structured description of the protocol and roles.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: EAI token (ERC‑20): 0xa84f95eb3dabdc1bbd613709ef5f2fd42ce5be8d
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xa84f95eb3dabdc1bbd613709ef5f2fd42ce5be8d
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token and address are confirmed by the explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): the whitepaper talks about “Bitcoin L2 / BVM”; the onchain artifacts of that network (addresses/explorer) are not confirmed in this card.

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: the protocol describes an onchain contract for prompt submission/coordination, but without addresses/deployed contracts in the extracted Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without addresses and onchain artifacts we consider it unverifiable.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: the design around trustless rewards/verification depends on onchain, but without addresses/an implementation this is not proven by artifacts; the web product could also exist as a regular service.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf ; https://eternalai.org/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): onchain criticality is not proven by deployed contracts/data.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, EAI.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xa84f95eb3dabdc1bbd613709ef5f2fd42ce5be8d
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token exists onchain.
  • 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): users pay for the execution of prompts; fees are part of the network’s rewards (whitepaper).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): in the protocol design, “users pay to run a prompt”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): agents/verifiers receive rewards; in case of a dispute, slashing and fraud‑detection rewards are possible (whitepaper).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): incentives + slashing/penalties are described.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): governance via EAI is not confirmed in the extracted Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper describes fees/rewards/verification, but not the governance mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): in the whitepaper, the token is the basis of the incentive model (fees/rewards/stake/slashing), which makes it less replaceable within the protocol design.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token is embedded in the economy and security (stake/slash), so “replaceability” is not proven.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://eternalai.org/whitepaper.pdf the design of the Proof‑of‑Compute protocol (agents/verifiers, disputes, incentives), task examples (text/image/music)
Tier‑1 https://eternalai.org/ the existence of a public media generation/editing interface (demo/product)
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xa84f95eb3dabdc1bbd613709ef5f2fd42ce5be8d confirms the onchain EAI token on Ethereum and the max total supply

No comments to display

Back to top