Skip to main content

Gatsby

Gatsby — 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).

Gatsby — an AI/Other | DeFi project (onchain analytics/terminal), token: GATSBY (ERC‑20, Ethereum).

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 web terminal for reading and analyzing onchain data (explorer + query engine + trading suite).
  • Who it’s for: traders and teams that need filtering/aggregation of onchain events and monitoring.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain — a data source (transactions/pools/wallets); the necessity of the GATSBY token for the product to operate is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): a public beta surface of the explorer (an example wallet page is in links_*).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: opens the terminal/explorer and sets filters or a natural language query (claimed).
  2. The system does: aggregates onchain data, builds selections/charts and (claimed) provides categories/labels.
  3. The user gets: lists of tokens/pairs/wallets/events and analysis results.
  4. Where the blockchain is: as a data source (reading the state and events of networks).
  5. Token role (if any): the GATSBY token exists, but its mandatory role for access/payment/incentives is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Gatsby
Also known as (aliases) Gatsby Terminal; GATSBY
Logo (logo) ../assets/820_gatsby-fi_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) GATSBY
Category AI/Other | DeFi | Infra
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) in development
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xca7af58da871736994ce360f51ec6cd28351a3df
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply 100,000,000
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Max total supply 100,000,000; decimals 18 (per the explorer).
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) NLP queries on on-chain data
Use‑case (use_case) on-chain market research + monitoring
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 2/6 — low alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 2 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 1
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Gatsby describes itself as a “terminal for everything onchain” — a web application that helps read and interpret blockchain data (wallets, tokens, pairs, events) and perform actions in trading tools (claimed). The whitepaper identifies three parts: explorer, query engine and trading suite.

Features/modules

  • Explorer (oriented toward token trading tasks, claimed).
  • Query engine: natural language queries on onchain data (claimed).
  • Labels/categorization of wallets/tokens/pairs (claimed).
  • Alerts/event tracking and trend lists (claimed).
  • Trading suite / automation / backtesting (roadmap/claimed in the whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user formulates a query “show tokens with a growing number of holders …” → gets a selection and can proceed to the details.
  • Scenario 2: a user tracks a wallet/token → gets event notifications (claimed).
  • Scenario 3: a user tests a strategy/automation → gets a backtest/execution result (claimed as a direction in the whitepaper).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: web access; an account/waitlist (claimed).
  • Network/chain: the product claims to work with multiple networks (on the website: Ethereum, Base, Solana, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Blast).
  • Fees: network fees arise during onchain transactions; the platform’s subscription/fee model is described in the whitepaper (without parameters in the available Tier‑1 sources).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: web app; a backend for indexing/aggregating onchain data; an explorer interface; query engine (claimed).
  • Participant roles: users; the team operating the service.
  • Where logic runs: the main analysis/aggregation logic — offchain; onchain — a data source/transaction execution on networks.
  • Dependencies: RPC/network data indexing; external explorers (as a validation/cross‑checking point).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources (the whitepaper describes subscriptions/fees, but it is not established that this is necessarily linked to the token).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: not established.
  • Who pays fees: users pay network fees for transactions; a role for GATSBY in payment for the platform is not established.
  • Where fees go: —
  • Issuance/burn: fixed supply (max total supply 100,000,000).
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: not established.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Treasury: —

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • How protocol parameters change: —
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: —
  • Keys/multisig: —

Security and incidents

  • Audits: no Tier‑1 confirmation found.
  • Bug bounty: no Tier‑1 confirmation found.
  • Incidents: no Tier‑1 confirmation found.
  • Threat model: risks of data quality/incomplete indexing; risks of a centralized service (availability/correctness of results).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the product claims an MVP/release stages; public dates/versions are not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Key releases/milestones: the whitepaper describes the sequence: MVP → Explorer → Query engine (beta) → Public launch (in relative timeframes from TGE).
  • Roadmap: per the whitepaper (without dates in the available Tier‑1 sources).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: support for multiple networks is claimed (on the website: Ethereum, Base, Solana, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Blast).
  • Partners: not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Where it’s actually used: not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The whitepaper claims a natural language query engine and AI approaches to labeling/categorization (claimed).
  • What is truly onchain? Onchain — a data source (reading events/state of networks); the product’s own onchain logic (other than the token) is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Why is a token needed? The existence of the GATSBY token is confirmed onchain, but its necessity for the product (access/payment/incentives/governance) is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): insufficient verifiable details on AI architecture/metrics (AI_3=0, AI_4=0); absence of Tier‑1 on token utility; centralized dependence on the backend/indexing.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 2/6 — low alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 2
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity low 0
Evidence Tier‑1 present 1
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A separate “AI roadmap item” is not identified as an intention: AI is claimed as part of the product.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gatsby.fi/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): We use AI_1=1 (there is a description of AI features), while “intent” adds no separate signal.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The query engine allows users to “query the blockchain with natural language”; AI labels/categorization are also claimed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gatsby.fi/whitepaper.pdf ; https://gatsby.fi/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes AI features as part of the product (NLP queries/AI analytics).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): There is a public beta surface of the explorer (an example wallet page) on the project’s domain.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://beta.gatsby.fi/explorer/wallets/0x05bb4b46cf5cb98185d12183d9922d69f2f323fe
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): This is a reproducible public “surface” that can be opened and checked without access to the closed query engine.
  • 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 reproducible set of quality metrics/benchmarks was found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Detailed AI model architecture/versions/datasets are not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes product features but does not provide a technical specification of the AI part.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0xca7af58da871736994ce360f51ec6cd28351a3df (ERC‑20 token contract)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xca7af58da871736994ce360f51ec6cd28351a3df
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract and its parameters are observable in the 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 per Tier‑1: the product is described as an offchain platform for reading/analyzing onchain data.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gatsby.fi/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No confirmation of the product’s own smart contracts/protocol (other than the token) was found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: the core of the product is analytics; theoretically, it can work on data from an index/DB without requiring its own trustless onchain mechanics.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no evidence per Tier‑1 that the product requires its own onchain guarantees (other than reading 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, GATSBY (ERC‑20, Ethereum).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xca7af58da871736994ce360f51ec6cd28351a3df
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of the token is confirmed onchain; utility is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • 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): The use of the token as mandatory payment for the service is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gatsby.fi/whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The whitepaper describes subscriptions/fees, but it is not established that payment is mandatory specifically in GATSBY.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Mechanisms of incentives/collateral/penalties in the protocol are not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no verifiable description of onchain incentives/collateral per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The use of the token for governance is not confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 description of a governance process with a role for GATSBY.
  • 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 confirmed by Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without confirmed utility, replaceability cannot be correctly assessed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://gatsby.fi/ Tier‑1 description of the product (terminal/explorer/querying) and the claimed features (claimed).
Tier‑1 https://gatsby.fi/whitepaper.pdf Tier‑1 whitepaper: product composition (Explorer/Query engine/Trading suite), NLP querying (claimed), business model (subscriptions/fees without a link to the token per Tier‑1).
Tier‑1 https://beta.gatsby.fi/explorer/wallets/0x05bb4b46cf5cb98185d12183d9922d69f2f323fe Public beta surface of the explorer (demo surface) on the project’s domain.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xca7af58da871736994ce360f51ec6cd28351a3df The GATSBY ERC‑20 token contract and parameters (max supply, decimals).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “token utility (payment/access/incentives/governance) as a mandatory product mechanic” was found.
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/gatsby Token profile (for reference).
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/gatsby-fi/ Token profile (for reference).

No comments to display

Back to top