Skip to main content

Guru Network

Guru Network — 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).

Guru Network — an AI/Agents | Infra project on the Ethereum network, token (symbol: GURU).

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 project that, in its Tier‑1 whitepaper, describes an “AI orchestration network” and a framework for orchestrating AI/onchain/offchain flows.
  • Who it’s for: developers and teams who need an orchestration layer/SDK (claimed).
  • Why onchain/token: the existence of the GURU ERC‑20 token is confirmed per Tier‑1; the whitepaper describes an onchain layer via process definition smart contracts (claimed).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: describes/assembles a workflow (BBPA/BBPMN) and connects “agents/processors” (claimed).
  2. The system does: orchestrates the workflow steps between onchain/offchain components and AI parts (claimed).
  3. The user gets: an automated process and the results of step execution.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the GURU token and mentions of process definition smart contracts (see whitepaper).
  5. Token role (if any): not established per Tier‑1 as a strict necessity of the protocol; the whitepaper has a Tokenomics section (a separate check of the utility is needed).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Guru Network
Also known as (aliases) GURU, DexGuru (mention in branding)
Logo (logo) ../assets/584_guru-network_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) GURU
Category AI/Agents | Infra
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 0x525574c899a7c877a11865339e57376092168258
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply 1 000 000 000 GURU
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Total supply 1B GURU (per the explorer); utility details require a separate Tier‑1 check.
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI agent orchestration + workflows (BBPA)
Use‑case (use_case) orchestration layer for AI/on-chain/off-chain processes
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 2 / onchain_score 2 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 2
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Guru Network, in its Tier‑1 whitepaper, describes an “AI orchestration network” and a set of components (Flow Orchestrator, BBPA/BBPMN, individual agents) that are supposed to link AI processes, onchain actions and offchain data/operations.

Within DecAIHub, the key point is whether there is a verifiable description of the AI part and the onchain part. The Tier‑1 whitepaper provides an architectural description (AI_4=1) and claims a role for onchain contracts for process definitions (OC_2=1), but quality metrics (AI_3) and a reproducible demo (AI_2) are not established per Tier‑1 sources.

Features/modules

  • Flow Orchestrator: orchestration of multi‑step processes (as claimed in the whitepaper).
  • BBPA/BBPMN: process definitions and their execution (claimed).
  • Individual Agents: computational “agents” for executing tasks (including AI compute) (claimed).
  • Developer toolkit/SDK: a mention of the framework and tooling (see links_* GitHub/whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a developer describes a workflow → the system orchestrates the steps between components (claimed).
  • Scenario 2: an agent subscribes to a task queue → executes the task and publishes the result (claimed).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: depends on the tools/SDK and the network; we record only Tier‑1 links (docs/whitepaper/repo).
  • Network/chain: Ethereum — for the GURU token; the networks/multichain part as a fact requires separate Tier‑1 recording.
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees for onchain operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: Flow Orchestrator, BBPA Engines, process definition smart contracts, individual agents (per the whitepaper).
  • Participant roles: users/developers, agent owners/task executors.
  • Where logic runs: orchestration and task execution — combined (onchain/offchain), per the whitepaper; the exact breakdown of “what exactly runs where” requires additional Tier‑1 detail.
  • Dependencies: an integration with Chainlink (CCIP/DON) is mentioned in the whitepaper.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • What is confirmed by Tier‑1: the existence of the GURU ERC‑20 token and a max total supply of 1 000 000 000 (per the explorer).
  • Token utility: Tier‑1 confirmation of a specific utility (payment/incentives/governance) is not recorded.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: not established (Tier‑1).
  • How protocol parameters change: not established (Tier‑1).

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 depend on the execution of offchain components and contracts; the whitepaper describes general principles.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (based on the presence of a Tier‑1 repository/whitepaper and the token).
  • Key releases/milestones: not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Roadmap: there is a public roadmap in the Tier‑1 documentation (see links_*).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: the whitepaper mentions an integration with Chainlink (CCIP/DON) as an architectural element.
  • Partners: we do not record them as a fact without Tier‑1 primary sources (not established per Tier‑1).
  • Where it’s actually used: not established per Tier‑1 sources.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The Tier‑1 whitepaper describes the orchestration of AI agents/processors and AI tasks as part of the system (without quality metrics).
  • What is truly onchain? The GURU ERC‑20 token; the whitepaper claims process definition smart contracts and an onchain part of the orchestration.
  • Why is a token needed? A specific utility of the token (payment/incentives/governance) is not recorded per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): “AI orchestration” without a demo or metrics; an undefined role of the token; mixing architectural plans with proven functioning.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 2
Onchain necessity medium 2
Token necessity low 0
Evidence Tier‑1 partial 2
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 sources describe the AI part as architecture/mechanics, not as “intent only”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The intent item adds no signal when Tier‑1 already describes the AI purpose/mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The Tier‑1 whitepaper describes AI agents/processors and their role in the orchestration workflow (AI‑driven user flows, GPT completions, RAG embeddings).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The official document describes the AI purpose and examples of AI operations at the system level.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 reproducible demo example (input→output) for the AI part was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is an architectural description, but no “what you can touch” as a verifiable demo.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Quality metrics/benchmarks of the AI part were not found in Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The Tier‑1 whitepaper describes the architecture: orchestration layer, BBPA engines, individual agents, Chainlink CCIP/DON integration.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is a sufficiently detailed architectural description at the system level.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0x525574c899a7c877a11865339e57376092168258 (ERC‑20)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x525574c899a7c877a11865339e57376092168258
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is a public token contract and an explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: The whitepaper claims process definition smart contracts and an onchain part of the orchestration (task queues/subscriptions/publication of results).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 document describes onchain components going beyond “just a token”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: A Tier‑1 justification that the product loses its meaning without the blockchain is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There are architectural theses about trust/consensus, but no specific proven “replace the blockchain” test.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, GURU (ERC‑20, Ethereum).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x525574c899a7c877a11865339e57376092168258
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Explorer confirms the existence of the token and its parameters.
  • 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): Payment for the service with the token as a confirmed Tier‑1 mechanism is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit Tier‑1 thesis “X is paid for with the token”; not recorded per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Token‑based incentives/collateral/penalties are not established as a Tier‑1 fact.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Specifics on the incentive mechanics are needed; not singled out as a confirmed Tier‑1 mechanism.
  • 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 established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no explicit description of voting/a DAO tied to the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The replaceability of the token as a proven thesis is not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit Tier‑1 argument “possible without the token”; not found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://gurunetwork.ai/assets/img/guru_network_architecture_whitepaper.pdf Architecture and purpose: AI orchestration network, agents/processors, onchain/offchain orchestration, Chainlink (CCIP/DON) integration.
Tier‑1 https://github.com/dex-guru/guru-framework Repository (framework/SDK) as a Tier‑1 development artifact.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x525574c899a7c877a11865339e57376092168258 Onchain fact: the GURU token (ERC‑20) and the supply/contract parameters.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “specific utility of the token (payment/incentives/governance)” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top