Griffin AI
Griffin AI (GAIN) — 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).
Griffin AI — an AI/Agents / DeFi project: a no‑code platform (Agent Builder + Playground) for creating and using autonomous AI agents that interact with Web3 (DeFi operations/analytics/news) and are claimed as “on‑chain deployment”. Onchain SSOT of the token: GAIN (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 platform for building and running “AI agents” for crypto/DeFi tasks (agents in the Playground and the Agent Builder constructor).
- Who it’s for: DeFi users and teams/creators who need ready‑made agents without writing code.
- Why onchain/token: the GAIN token is used as the onchain layer of the ecosystem (accounting/economy/payments and incentives for network participants — as claimed in the project’s roadmap update).
How it works (very briefly)
- The user does: selects a ready‑made agent in the Playground or builds their own in the Agent Builder.
- The system does: the agent receives data (prices/liquidity/news/forums) and helps perform actions in Web3 scenarios.
- The user gets: automation/hints/execution of typical DeFi tasks via an agent.
- Where the blockchain is: the GAIN token is onchain (Ethereum); the roadmap describes onchain contracts (ID registry / bonding) as part of the network.
- Token role (if any): the roadmap describes the token’s role as the basis of interactions/payments and participation mechanics (bonding with slashing).
Quick links: AI thesis fit
Project passport
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Project name | Griffin AI |
| Also known as (aliases) | GAIN; $GAIN |
| Logo (logo) | ../assets/236_griffin-ai_logo.svg |
| Token symbol (ticker) | GAIN |
| Category | AI/Agents | DeFi |
| 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 | 0xe0Ff1B0584d63Cb74A78537f1fe0d17564e741D4 |
| Token model (token_type) | utility (incentives, bonding) |
| Max supply | — |
| Issuance | — |
| Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) | the token is used for payments/participation in the network; bonding with slashing (roadmap update) |
| Governance | — |
| Admins/keys | — |
| Audit | yes (Hacken) |
| Bug bounty | — |
| Team (team) | — |
| Funding (investors/funding) | — |
| AI component (ai_component) | no-code DeFi AI agents (builder/playground) |
| Use‑case (use_case) | DeFi automation + analytics |
| DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit | 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis |
| DecAI Fit component summary | 2 / 2 / 2 / 3 |
| Last verified | 2026-02-11 |
Links (links_*)
| Type | Link |
|---|---|
| Website | https://griffinai.io |
| Docs | https://www.griffinai.io/whitepaper |
| GitHub | — |
| Releases / Changelog | https://blog.griffinai.io/ |
| Whitepaper | https://griffinai.io/whitepaper |
| Roadmap | https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap |
| Security advisories | — |
| Explorer | https://etherscan.io/token/0xe0Ff1B0584d63Cb74A78537f1fe0d17564e741D4 |
| X | https://twitter.com/Griffin_AI |
| Discord | https://discord.gg/AGZDk5BqFA |
| Telegram | https://t.me/GRIFFINai |
| Medium | — |
| Audit report(s) | https://hacken.io/audits/griffin-ai-ag |
| Bug bounty | — |
| CoinGecko (profile, reference) | https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/griffin-ai-2 |
| CoinMarketCap (profile, reference) | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/griffin-ai/ |
General project overview
Griffin AI is positioned as a platform for creating and using AI agents in Web3/DeFi: the website describes the Agent Builder (a no‑code constructor), the Agent Playground (an environment for testing/using agents) and plans for a Marketplace. In the roadmap update, the team describes the development of the “Griffin Network” (Griffin ID registry / bonding contracts) and features such as RAG in the Agent Builder (uploading PDF/CSV to personalize agents).
Features/modules
- No‑code Agent Builder: building and configuring agents.
- Agent Playground: the place where agents are available and tested.
- Agent suite for Web3/DeFi (research/news/price/tx execution, etc. — per the “AI Agents” page).
- Griffin ID / onchain contracts (the roadmap update mentions smart contracts and an ID registry).
Typical scenarios
- Scenario 1: the user selects a ready‑made agent (e.g., research/news) → receives summaries/search/data analysis on request.
- Scenario 2: the user builds their own agent in the Agent Builder → configures the model/behavior and uses it for tasks in Web3.
- Scenario 3: a developer/creator publishes an agent (plan/feature) → potentially monetizes it via the marketplace (claimed as a roadmap direction).
Getting started (wallet/network)
- What you need: Web3 wallet(s) (depending on the chains the agent interacts with), an account/access to the Griffin AI platform.
- Network/chain: Ethereum (GAIN token) + claimed multi‑chain support for agents.
- Fees: fees of the respective networks for onchain operations (transactions/interaction with dApps).
Architecture/tech (non‑AI)
- Components: the web platform (Playground/Builder), the onchain token (ERC‑20), the Griffin ID registry and bonding contracts described in the roadmap.
- Participant roles: users/agent creators; operator/team; the roadmap describes network roles (e.g., node operators/service providers) via bonding.
- Where logic runs: AI computations and most functions — offchain; onchain — token accounting and individual contracts/identities/incentives (per the roadmap).
- Dependencies: EVM networks and wallets; data sources (prices/news) as part of the agent tools.
Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)
- Token utility: the roadmap update claims that the token “serves as the basis of network interactions”, including payments and agent services; the same text describes bonding contracts as a participation security mechanism.
- Protocol necessity drivers: the token is used as a means of economic incentives and payments within the network/platform (per the roadmap).
- Who pays fees: users/participants for onchain operations.
- Where fees go: network fees — to the validators of the respective chains.
- Issuance/burn: max supply per CMC = 1B; the onchain supply displayed on Etherscan differs (we record this as a conflict of sources).
- Security/incentive mechanisms: bonding contracts with “slashing” as a penalty for SLA violations/malicious behavior (described in the roadmap update).
- Distribution and token issuance schedule: — (not disclosed in the Tier‑1 pages shown).
- Treasury: —.
Governance
- Who makes decisions: —.
- How protocol parameters change: via platform/contract updates (governance details are not disclosed in the Tier‑1 shown).
- Where decisions are discussed/made: the official blog/roadmap updates and social channels.
- Keys/multisig: —.
Security and incidents
- Audits: there is a Hacken audits page for Griffin AI AG (details of specific reports were not extracted).
- Bug bounty: —.
- Incidents: not found in Tier‑1 sources.
- Threat model: smart contract risks, risks of integrations with wallets/dApps, and quality risks of “agentic” automation.
Project status and timeline
- Current status: the platform/agent pages are public; the GAIN token exists on Ethereum.
- Key releases/milestones: roadmap update (2024‑12‑15) and the testnet/platform release stages mentioned in the text.
- Roadmap: https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
Ecosystem/integrations
- Integrations: multi‑chain support and work with wallets/dApps are claimed; “AI Agents” describes the Playground as the place for interacting with agents.
- Partners: the “roadmap update” mentions integrations/partnerships (e.g., Burrito Wallet for ELANN.AI) as a case.
- Where it’s actually used: ELANN.AI and the Playground agents are described as real products/integrations (Tier‑1: roadmap update + the agents page).
AI component of the project
- What is real AI here? the project describes an AI agent platform (Playground/Builder) and lists the types of agents and their purpose.
- What is truly onchain? the GAIN token (ERC‑20, Ethereum) and the onchain contracts described in the roadmap (Griffin ID registry / bonding).
- Why is a token needed? the roadmap describes the token’s role as the basis of payments/interactions and bonding mechanics (collateral with slashing).
- Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing — low/moderate (there is a product description, but the demo in the text snapshot of
app.griffinai.iowas not extracted); onchain‑washing — moderate (much remains offchain); token‑washing — moderate (the token’s role is claimed, tokenomics/distribution details are not disclosed); what to double‑check — the real UX of the Playground/Builder, the addresses of the bonding/ID contracts and the slashing conditions.
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 | 2 |
| 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): the project has not only an “intent” but also a described product (Agent Playground/Builder).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://griffinai.io/agents ; https://griffinai.io/
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 is used only when there is no evidence of working AI (AI_1..AI_4 = 0), which is not the case here.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)
- AI_1 (decision): 1
- Claim (one line): the platform provides AI agents for Web3/DeFi tasks (research/news/price/tx execution, etc.).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://griffinai.io/agents
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): the agents page lists the types of agents and their purpose.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)
- AI_2 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): Tier‑1 contains a link to the Playground (
app.griffinai.io), but the demo is unavailable per the available sources. - Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://griffinai.io/agents ; https://app.griffinai.io/
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): without an accessible demo/verifiable example — 0.
- Conflict note (if any):
app.griffinai.iodid not load (page unavailable).
AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)
- AI_3 (decision): 0
- Metrics: —
- Context (version/date/how measured): —
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://griffinai.io/agents
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): quality metrics/benchmarks of the agents/models are not provided.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_4 — tech description/architecture/versions (1/0)
- AI_4 (decision): 1
- Claim (one line): the roadmap update describes the functionality of the Agent Builder (GPT/Llama models, RAG, PDF/CSV upload) and network elements (ID registry, bonding).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are technical details of the features/subsystems (albeit without source code/model versions).
- Conflict note (if any): —
Onchain necessity
OC_1 — contracts/addresses/chain (1/0)
- OC_1 (decision): 1
- Chain: Ethereum
- Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 GAIN: 0xe0Ff1B0584d63Cb74A78537f1fe0d17564e741D4
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xe0Ff1B0584d63Cb74A78537f1fe0d17564e741D4
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): the contract address is confirmed by the explorer/CMC.
- Conflict note (if any): the onchain supply on Etherscan does not match the max supply on CMC.
OC_2 — onchain beyond just a token (1/0)
- OC_2 (decision): 1
- What useful logic is onchain: the roadmap describes Griffin ID registry contracts and bonding contracts (economic security of participation).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): this is onchain logic beyond “just a token”.
- Conflict note (if any): the addresses/ABI of these contracts are not provided in the text.
OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)
- OC_3 (decision): 0
- “Replace the blockchain” test: the AI agents/constructor can work offchain; onchain adds economy/identity/incentives, but “breaks down without onchain” is not proven.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap ; https://griffinai.io/agents
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no Tier‑1 proof of the blockchain’s criticality for the core function (AI agents).
- Conflict note (if any): —
Token necessity
TK_0 — no token (1/0)
- TK_0 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): the project has a token, GAIN.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xe0Ff1B0584d63Cb74A78537f1fe0d17564e741D4
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token and the contract exist onchain and in the CMC profile.
- 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 roadmap update claims that the token serves as the basis of network interactions and “enabling payments, powering agent services”.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): this is a direct Tier‑1 statement about the token’s payment role.
- Conflict note (if any): specific tariffs/payment mechanics are not disclosed.
TK_2 — incentives/collateral/penalties (1/0)
- TK_2 (decision): 1
- Claim (one line): the bonding contracts require “lock tokens as a bond” and allow slashing for violations (SLA/malicious behavior).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a description of the collateral and the penalty logic.
- Conflict note (if any): contract parameters/addresses are not specified.
TK_3 — governance (1/0)
- TK_3 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): governance via the token is not described in Tier‑1.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://griffinai.io/ ; https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no description of voting/governance rules.
- Conflict note (if any): —
TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)
- TK_4 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): the replaceability of the token with “USDC/a subscription without loss of meaning” is not proven in Tier‑1.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): the roadmap describes the token as the basis of network interactions/incentives.
- Conflict note (if any): —
Evidence (table)
| Tier | Source | What it proves |
|---|---|---|
| Tier‑1 | https://griffinai.io/agents | description of the Playground/Builder and the types of AI agents (AI reality) |
| Tier‑1 | https://blog.griffinai.io/news/griffin-ai-roadmap | AI features (RAG/models) + onchain contracts (ID registry/bonding) + token role (payments/bonding/slashing) |
| Tier‑1 | https://etherscan.io/token/0xe0Ff1B0584d63Cb74A78537f1fe0d17564e741D4 | onchain token contract on Ethereum |
| Tier‑1 | https://hacken.io/audits/griffin-ai-ag | the fact that audits exist (Hacken page) |
| Tier‑2 | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/griffin-ai/ | Aggregator: reference profile and links (not Tier‑1). |
| Tier‑2 | https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/griffin-ai-2 | Aggregator: reference profile and links (not Tier‑1). |
No comments to display
No comments to display