Skip to main content

iMe Lab

iMe Lab — 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).

iMe Lab (iMe Messenger & Crypto Wallet) — an AI/Other / Consumer project (a Telegram‑based messenger + a non‑custodial wallet), token (symbol: LIME).

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 Telegram client with additional features + a crypto wallet/DeFi tools; the documentation claims the integration of AI features in the form of Neurobots.
  • Who it’s for: Telegram users who need a convenient non‑custodial wallet and crypto features “in chat”.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain is needed mainly for the LIME token and wallet operations; the LIME token is used as the ecosystem’s utility asset (payments/wallet features, DAO mechanics, marketplace purchases, etc.).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: communicates in the messenger and/or activates the iMe crypto wallet.
  2. The system does: provides an interface for storing assets, swaps/transfers and additional iMe features.
  3. The user gets: a messenger experience like in Telegram + wallet/DeFi tools.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the LIME token exists on several EVM networks (ERC‑20/BEP‑20/Polygon); transfers/swaps happen onchain.
  5. Token role: LIME is a utility token for ecosystem features; the documentation also claims a DAO structure.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name iMe Lab
Also known as (aliases) iMe, iMe Messenger, iMe Crypto Wallet, LIME
Logo (logo) ../assets/194_ime-lab_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) LIME
Category AI/Other | Consumer
Primary chain (chain) BNB Smart Chain
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoSA (BNB Smart Chain; 21 validators)
Launch date (launch_date) 2021-06-10 (LIME ERC‑20 launch; per the docs)
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x7bc75e291e656e8658d66be1cc8154a3769a35dd
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking + governance)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 LIME (issued; per the docs)
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) LIME is claimed as the ecosystem’s utility token; the docs list usage scenarios (gas in LIME, premium, donations, marketplace, etc.)
Governance DAO (as claimed in token use)
Admins/keys —
Audit yes (CertiK audit PDF)
Bug bounty no (in Hackdra: inactive)
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) Neurobots (AI features in client)
Use‑case (use_case) messenger + crypto wallet
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 1 / 1 / 1 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Per Tier‑1 sources, iMe is an alternative Telegram client working through the Telegram API, with additional features (interface conveniences, a translator, etc.) and a built‑in crypto wallet.

The documentation claims that iMe “includes … integrated Artificial Intelligence in the form of Neurobots” — that is, AI is present as a product feature in the application, but this is not an AI protocol/AI network: the core value of iMe is the messenger client and the wallet.

Features/modules

  • iMe Messenger as a Telegram client (via the Telegram API).
  • iMe Crypto Wallet: a non‑custodial wallet and asset operations (transfers/swaps, etc.).
  • LIME as the ecosystem’s utility token (several networks).
  • Neurobots (claimed): AI features within the application.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1 (wallet in chat): the user activates the wallet → stores/transfers crypto assets → interacts with DeFi features.
  • Scenario 2 (LIME ecosystem functions): the user uses LIME for the scenarios listed in the docs (premium, gas‑in‑LIME, donations, marketplace, etc.).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: install the iMe app (Android/iOS/Desktop), activate the wallet.
  • Network/chain: EVM networks (the docs list Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain, Polygon for LIME).
  • Fees: the gas of the respective network; the docs claim a “Gas in LIME” scenario (paying the fee in LIME within the app).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: a Telegram‑based messenger client + wallet/integrations; LIME token smart contracts on several networks.
  • Where logic runs: the messenger part and most of the app’s features — offchain; wallet/token operations — onchain.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

Per Tier‑1 sources, LIME is the token of the iMe project (ERC‑20, BEP‑20 and Polygon). The docs state:

  • Issuance volume: “In total, 1 Billion Lime was issued.”
  • Key dates: LIME ERC‑20 — 2021‑06‑10; part of the tokens was moved to BEP‑20 (2021‑08‑02) and Polygon (2022‑04‑06).

The usage scenarios (utility) in the docs include:

  • DAO Structure: LIME holders “will be entitled to vote and make decisions”.
  • Premium: access to “advanced DeFi functionality using Lime tokens”.
  • Gas in LIME: paying gas “in LIME tokens” for transfers on supported networks (as claimed in the app’s docs).
  • Donations / CryptoBoxes / Marketplace: payments/donations/purchases (including NFT avatars and “NFT‑Neurobots”, claimed).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: the docs claim a DAO structure for LIME holders.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: a PDF of the CertiK report on the LIME contract (2021‑05‑21) is published in the docs.
  • Bug bounty: no public active program was found in Tier‑1 sources; the Hackdra page says “inactive”.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: docs are available, the app is available on the platforms (links in GitBook).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The documentation claims the integration of AI “in the form of Neurobots”, but without a technical description of the model/quality metrics.
  • What is truly onchain? The LIME token (BEP‑20/ERC‑20/Polygon) and the user’s wallet operations.
  • Why is a token needed? Utility for ecosystem features (premium, gas‑in‑LIME, donations, marketplace) and the claimed governance.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): the AI part is described declaratively (without architecture/versions/metrics); “gas in LIME” and a number of utilities are app functionality that is hard to verify without using the app.

DecAI Fit component summary

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

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI is claimed as an integrated feature of the app (not as “only an intent without an AI feature”).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI is present as a feature (“Neurobots”), so the intent flag is not used.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the integration of AI in the form of Neurobots (AI features in the app) is claimed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the Tier‑1 source directly speaks of “integrated Artificial Intelligence … Neurobots”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a public web demo/guide that can be reproduced outside the app was not found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the existence of an app ≠ the existence of a documented demo of the AI feature by the AI_2 standard.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are no metrics/benchmarks for Neurobots.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): there is no technical description of the AI architecture/model versions.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs record the existence of the AI feature, but without implementation details.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: BNB Smart Chain (and other networks for LIME)
  • Addresses/identifiers: LIME BEP‑20 0x7bc75e291e656e8658d66be1cc8154a3769a35dd
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime ; https://bscscan.com/address/0x7bc75e291e656e8658d66be1cc8154a3769a35dd
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the contract address is given in the docs, and it is verifiable 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: no confirmation was found in Tier‑1 that the product requires onchain logic beyond the tokens and ordinary wallet operations.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the ecosystem and the token are described, but no protocol of onchain logic “on top of” the token is described.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: the “messenger + wallet” product can exist without its own onchain protocol; no proof of criticality was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): onchain is used as the environment for assets/the token, not as irreplaceable protocol logic.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, LIME.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs directly describe the token and its standards.
  • 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 docs describe scenarios for using LIME for ecosystem features (premium, marketplace, donations, etc.).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): direct “use” scenarios for the token inside the app are listed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 contains no clear description of collateral/penalties/protocol incentives critical to the operation of a network.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are product mechanics, but these are not protocol collateral/slashing/security.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): it is claimed that LIME holders can vote and influence development.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token use section contains the item “DAO Structure … entitled to vote”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 contains no strict proof that these features cannot be implemented via a subscription/USDC without its own token.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): usage scenarios are described, but the irreplaceability of the native token is not proven.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/ that iMe is a Telegram client + the claimed integration of AI (Neurobots) and the wallet
Tier‑1 https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/cryptowallet/lime the token standards, the 1B issuance, key dates and usage scenarios (DAO/premium/gas in LIME/marketplace, etc.)
Tier‑1 https://bscscan.com/address/0x7bc75e291e656e8658d66be1cc8154a3769a35dd the onchain LIME contract on BNB Smart Chain
Tier‑1 https://imem.gitbook.io/faq-eng/docs/audit the existence of the CertiK audit PDF for the LIME contract
Tier‑2 https://oznet.hackdra.com/project/ime-lab/ an aggregated security insight (does not replace a Tier‑1 report)
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ime-lab reference profile

No comments to display

Back to top