Skip to main content

Inferium

Inferium — 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).

Inferium — an AI/Inference | Infra project on the Base network, token (symbol: IFR).

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 that claims “verifiable AI inference” and infrastructure for hosting/evaluating/running models and AI agents.
  • Who it’s for: developers and users who need to select models, run inference and get verifiability of results.
  • Why onchain/token: the documentation claims onchain proofs of computation (Proof of Inference) and the utility of the IFR token for governance/staking/fees/rewards.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: selects/runs a model or an AI agent, interacts with the evaluation/benchmarking tools.
  2. The system does: performs the inference and claims a mechanism for verification/auditability of the computations.
  3. The user gets: the inference result + the claimed verifiability (PoI) and the ability to compare models.
  4. Where the blockchain is: it is claimed that PoI is recorded onchain and that the IFR token exists on the Base network.
  5. Token role (if any): the tokenomics describe governance, staking (validators), fees and rewards/incentives.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Inferium
Also known as (aliases) IFR, $IFR
Logo (logo) ../assets/668_inferium_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) IFR
Category AI/Inference | Infra
Primary chain (chain) Base
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Base; Ethereum L2)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x01812ca908b5731be0db86000c15c5afa3e834b2
Token model (token_type) utility (governance)
Max supply 250,000,000 IFR (as claimed in the tokenomics)
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Tier‑1 describes governance/staking/fees/rewards for IFR; total supply 250,000,000.
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) verifiable inference + AI agents hub
Use‑case (use_case) model selection/launch + verifiable inference
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 2 / onchain_score 2 / token_score 3 / evidence_score 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Inferium describes itself as a hub for “verifiable AI inference” and AI agents. The documentation lists the problems the project is trying to solve: the difficulty of selecting models, the transparency of inference, benchmarking and the verifiability of results. As the approach, onchain artifacts (Proof of Inference) and infrastructure for running/evaluating models are claimed.

Features/modules

  • Proof of Inference (claimed): a mechanism for recording the “proof” of computations onchain is claimed.
  • Model evaluation / benchmarking (claimed): standardized metrics/evaluation and comparison of models are claimed.
  • Models and agents (claimed): the ability to deploy/use models and AI agents is claimed.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a developer selects a model/agent → runs inference → gets the result and the claimed verifiability (PoI).
  • Scenario 2: a user compares models by the claimed metrics/evaluation → selects a suitable model for their case.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: access to the project’s product/interfaces (it is not established per Tier‑1 which public surfaces exactly are available).
  • Network/chain: Base (per the tokenomics and the token contract).
  • Fees: the tokenomics describe fees paid in IFR (details of the implementation require verification).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the platform (offchain) + the onchain layer (Base) for the token and the claimed PoI artifacts.
  • Participant roles: users/developers; the tokenomics describe validator roles with staking.
  • Where logic runs: inference — offchain compute; “proof/auditability” is claimed as an onchain component.
  • Dependencies: EVM/Base infrastructure; external compute/data providers are mentioned in the documentation (as partners/integrations).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: governance, staking, transaction fees, rewards/incentives (described in the tokenomics).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the tokenomics claim that the validator role requires staking IFR and that fees are paid in IFR.
  • Supply parameters: total supply 250,000,000 IFR (described in the tokenomics).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: governance via IFR is claimed in the tokenomics (details of the process/venues are not established per Tier‑1).
  • How protocol parameters change: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the token contract is available on the Base network; the project documentation is published.
  • Roadmap: not established per Tier‑1.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: not established per Tier‑1 (the Tier‑1 documentation describes roles/layers, but without a specific list of integrations).
  • Partners: not established per Tier‑1.
  • Where it’s actually used: not established per Tier‑1 (public production integrations/cases are not listed in Tier‑1).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The documentation claims inference/model evaluation and AI agents (as product directions).
  • What is truly onchain? The documentation claims that Proof of Inference is recorded onchain; the IFR token exists on the Base network.
  • Why is a token needed? The tokenomics describe governance, staking (validators), fees and rewards.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): the implementation of PoI needs to be verified (which onchain artifacts exactly and where to view them); quality metrics (AI_3) as a reproducible benchmark are not established in Tier‑1.

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 high 3
Evidence Tier‑1 present 3
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 sources describe the product and the mechanics (not only intent/roadmap).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 applies in the case of “intent only”; here there is a description of the solution/mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The project describes the functions: running AI inference, evaluating/comparing models and AI agents.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The documentation contains descriptions of the problems/solution and the functional blocks.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A Tier‑1 demo/public surface of the product (app/console) is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.inferium.io/ ; https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_2 requires a reproducible example/demo, not only documentation.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): A Tier‑1 reproducible benchmark/metrics (what was measured/on what/for which version) are not established.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The documentation describes architectural elements (PoI, data/compute layers, participant roles).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is a tech description at the level of components and the claimed architecture.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Base
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0x01812ca908b5731be0db86000c15c5afa3e834b2
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://basescan.org/token/0x01812ca908b5731be0db86000c15c5afa3e834b2 ; https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The tokenomics specify the BASE blockchain; the explorer shows the token contract.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: Proof of Inference: it is claimed that “evidence of AI computation” is recorded onchain and is auditable/immutable.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 directly claims the onchain role as a mechanism for the verifiability of computations, not only token issuance.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: A Tier‑1 justification that a key property of the product breaks down without the blockchain (in terms of the SSOT test) is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There are claims about the onchain role, but there is no strict “replace the blockchain → what breaks down” with sufficient specifics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, IFR (BASE).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics ; https://basescan.org/token/0x01812ca908b5731be0db86000c15c5afa3e834b2
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The tokenomics record the token details; the explorer confirms the contract.
  • 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 tokenomics claim transaction fees and premium services paid in IFR.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes payment of fees/services with the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The tokenomics describe staking for validators and rewards/incentives (developer rewards, user engagement).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 explicitly describes the incentives and the staking mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The tokenomics state that IFR grants voting rights for governance decisions.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The governance utility is described in Tier‑1.
  • 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 established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): TK_4 requires a separate analysis of alternatives (for example, stablecoin fees) and of what exactly breaks down.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://docs.inferium.io/ Description of the problems/solution: verifiable inference, PoI, model layers and functional blocks.
Tier‑1 https://docs.inferium.io/tokenomics Token details and IFR utility: governance, staking, fees, rewards; supply 250,000,000.
Tier‑1 https://basescan.org/token/0x01812ca908b5731be0db86000c15c5afa3e834b2 Onchain fact: the IFR ERC‑20 token contract on the Base network.
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/inferium/ Reference token profile (metadata; not proof of the mechanics).
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/inferium Reference token profile (metadata; not proof of the mechanics).

No comments to display

Back to top