Skip to main content

Matrix AI Network

Matrix AI Network (MAN) — 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).

Matrix AI Network — an L1/infrastructure AI project: it develops its own blockchain network (Matrix Mainnet) and a set of AI‑oriented modules/services (including “Intelligent Contract” — generation of Solidity code from natural language, and MANTA — distributed AutoML). Token: MAN (native coin on Matrix Mainnet; there is a legacy ERC‑20 contract on Ethereum and a BEP‑20 on BSC for cross‑chain transfers).

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: its own L1 network + a set of applications/SDKs around it (wallet, nodes/masternodes, cross‑chain bridge, AI services).
  • Who it’s for: validators/node operators, developers, users of ecosystem applications.
  • Why onchain/token: it is a blockchain network where MAN is used for staking/node participation and as the unit of account/fees in the ecosystem.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): Matrix Web Wallet (the official web wallet) and the MANTA (distributed AutoML) deployment guide.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: creates a Matrix wallet and obtains MAN (on Matrix Mainnet or via cross‑chain transfers).
  2. The system does: processes transactions on Matrix Mainnet; validators/masternodes synchronize the chain and confirm blocks.
  3. The user gets: transfers/interaction with smart contracts and ecosystem services; node operators — rewards for participation (within the network rules).
  4. Where the blockchain is: accounting of balances/transactions/smart contracts happens onchain on Matrix Mainnet; cross‑chain operations go through the Wormhole contract(s).
  5. Token role (if any): MAN is used for staking (threshold amounts for different masternode types) and for fees/payments in the network and services.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Matrix AI Network
Also known as (aliases) MATRIX, Matrix, MAN
Logo (logo) ../assets/246_matrix-ai-network_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) MAN
Category L1 | Infra | AI
Primary chain (chain) Matrix Mainnet
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) Hybrid PoW/PoS
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) native (Matrix Mainnet); legacy ERC-20 (Ethereum); BEP-20 (BSC)
Token contract ERC‑20 (legacy): 0xe25bcec5d3801ce3a794079bf94adf1b8ccd802d
Token model (token_type) utility (staking + fees + cross-chain operations)
Max supply ERC‑20 (legacy): 249,993,500 MAN (Etherscan “Max Total Supply”)
Issuance fixed (for the legacy ERC‑20); for native MAN, the parameters are not confirmed in the extracted sources
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) There are staking thresholds for masternodes (10,000 / 100,000 MAN); the ERC‑20 → native swap is completed (deadline 2023‑01‑26).
Governance — (not found in the available Tier‑1 sources)
Admins/keys —
Audit — (no audit is listed in the extracted Etherscan data)
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) ICO (Etherscan: ICO Start Date 2018‑01‑17; ICO Price $0.36)
AI component (ai_component) AI tools/AutoML on top of L1 network
Use‑case (use_case) masternodes, smart contracts, AI services
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 3 / 3 / 1 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Matrix positions itself as an “AI‑powered” public blockchain platform: the project has its own mainnet (with validators/masternodes), an official web wallet and a set of services/applications. The documentation and the website also describe AI modules (for example, the distributed AutoML platform MANTA and “Intelligent Contract” for generating smart contracts from natural language).

The practical onchain part is the operation of the network itself (accounting of transactions/staking/rewards/smart contracts). The “AI part” consists of applied tools/services around the ecosystem that (per the project’s claim) use ML/LLM approaches to simplify development and/or automate certain tasks.

Features/modules

  • Matrix Mainnet: a network with masternodes/validators and MAN staking.
  • Matrix Web Wallet: the official web wallet for storage/staking/cross‑chain.
  • Wormhole bridge: cross‑chain transfers between Matrix Mainnet and BSC (the guide lists the BEP‑20 MAN contract on BSC).
  • Intelligent Contract: claimed as a tool that translates a natural‑language description into smart contract code.
  • MANTA (distributed AutoML): a platform for distributed AutoML and for distributing learning tasks with rewards.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a node operator stakes MAN and spins up a masternode → participates in the network and receives rewards per the protocol rules.
  • Scenario 2: a user holds MAN in the Matrix wallet → makes transfers/interacts with ecosystem dApps/contracts.
  • Scenario 3: a developer uses the documentation/tools (for example, Intelligent Contract / MANTA) → gets a prototype/service for further integration.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: the Matrix web wallet (wallet.matrix.io) or an EVM wallet for BEP‑20/legacy ERC‑20 assets.
  • Network/chain: Matrix Mainnet (native MAN); for cross‑chain, the guide uses BSC (BEP‑20 MAN).
  • Fees: network fees (gas) and the fees/deductions described in the cross‑chain transfer guide (a fixed 10 MAN for transfers <1000 MAN or 1% for transfers >1000 MAN, per the guide).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: L1 nodes/masternodes (go‑matrix, gman), web wallet, cross‑chain contracts (Wormhole), ecosystem services.
  • Participant roles: users, masternode operators (mining/validation), developers of services/applications.
  • Where logic runs: onchain — transactions/accounting/smart contracts; offchain — clients, nodes as software, as well as AI services/tools (for example, the AutoML web service).
  • Dependencies: the web infrastructure of the wallet/bridge; for MANTA — external datasets and GPU/server infrastructure (per the guide).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: staking to run masternodes; fees/operations in the network and cross‑chain transfers; participation in ecosystem services (per the project’s description).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: participation in consensus/infrastructure via masternodes requires a MAN stake; the cross‑chain transfer of MAN in the guide has a fixed/percentage fee denominated in MAN.
  • Who pays fees: network users and cross‑chain transfer users; node operators, if they perform network operations.
  • Where fees go: network fees — to consensus participants (validators/miners) per the network rules; the details of fee distribution are not fully disclosed in the Tier‑1 fragments.
  • Issuance/burn: the legacy ERC‑20 has a fixed max total supply on Etherscan; the issuance/burn parameters for native MAN are not confirmed in the extracted sources.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: a staking threshold for masternodes (10k / 100k MAN) and rewards for participation; risks — centralization of the infrastructure and slashing/penalty parameters unpublished in the extracted sources.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: not found in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • Treasury: not found in the available Tier‑1 sources.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: — (not described in the extracted Tier‑1)
  • How protocol parameters change: — (not found)
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: — (not found)
  • Keys/multisig: — (not found)

Security and incidents

  • Audits: — (not found in the extracted sources)
  • Bug bounty: — (not found)
  • Incidents: — (not found)
  • Threat model: typical risks of L1 networks (client/consensus bugs, attacks on the network/validators, bridge/cross‑chain risks).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: mainnet (per the explorer/website data and “Mainnet Launched” on Etherscan for the legacy contract).
  • Key releases/milestones: completion of the ERC‑20 → native swap period (deadline 2023‑01‑26).
  • Roadmap: Matrix 3.0 roadmap (PDF in links_*).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: the official web wallet, the explorer (tom.matrix.io), Wormhole bridge (wormhole.matrix.io, described in the guide).
  • Partners: — (not found)
  • Where it’s actually used: launching masternodes and staking via the wallet; MANTA as a separately deployable web service (per the guide).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the project describes applied AI modules: distributed AutoML (MANTA) and tools that simplify smart contract development (“Intelligent Contract”).
  • What is truly onchain? the operation of the L1 network (transactions/accounting/staking/rewards) and the cross‑chain contracts for transfers between Matrix Mainnet and BSC.
  • Why is a token needed? MAN is required for masternode staking and network participation; in the cross‑chain guides, fees are denominated in MAN, and the bridge issues BEP‑20 MAN on BSC.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing — there are no public quality metrics/benchmarks for the AI modules; onchain‑washing — some of the “AI services” may be entirely offchain; token‑washing — not all economic parameters (distribution/slashing rules/treasury) are confirmed by Tier‑1.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 3
Onchain necessity high 3
Token necessity medium 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): There are signs of AI reality per Tier‑1 (see AI_1..AI_4), so the AI_0 flag (intent‑only) does not apply.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — see Evidence/links in AI_1..AI_4.
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0=1 is admissible only when AI_1..AI_4=0; here ai_score without AI_0 = 3.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): “Intelligent Contract” is claimed to translate a natural‑language description into Solidity smart contract code.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.matrix.io/ , https://docs.matrix.io/intelligent-contract
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a direct description of the tool’s function in official sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the documentation describes the deployment of distributed AutoML (MANTA) as a web service, accessible via a public IP/port.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/manta/manta-mainnet-miner-deployment-guide
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the presence of a step‑by‑step deployment and an access point to the service is a practical example/demo at the “can be launched” level.
  • 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.matrix.io/manta/manta-mainnet-miner-deployment-guide
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the extracted Tier‑1 contains no clear quality metrics/benchmarks for the AI modules.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): there are technical guides for deploying the AI components (MANTA) and for operating nodes/the wallet (ecosystem infrastructure).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/manta/manta-mainnet-miner-deployment-guide , https://docs.matrix.io/guides/create-mining-masternodes-in-ubuntu-linux-with-matrix-ai-network
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the sources describe architectural/operational details (deployment, hardware requirements, processes).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Matrix Mainnet (native MAN) + legacy ERC‑20 on Ethereum; BEP‑20 MAN on BSC for cross‑chain.
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 (legacy) 0xe25bcec5d3801ce3a794079bf94adf1b8ccd802d; BEP‑20 MAN 0x772aD4f727aD96eAcab5c5c255576813B680C1D1 (per the Wormhole guide).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xe25bcec5d3801ce3a794079bf94adf1b8ccd802d , https://docs.matrix.io/guides/matrix-mainnet-cross-chain-transfer-guide-bsc
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are specific contract addresses in the explorer and in the official guide.
  • Conflict note (if any): the legacy ERC‑20 is marked as “Old Contract” on Etherscan.

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: consensus/accounting/smart contracts and network processes (launching masternodes, synchronization, block confirmation).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/guides/create-mining-masternodes-in-ubuntu-linux-with-matrix-ai-network , https://tom.matrix.io/home
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the masternode guide describes launching a node and interacting with mainnet (synchronization, RPC), and the explorer reflects the network state.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 1
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: without the network it is impossible to provide masternode staking/accounting/rewards and the operation of smart contracts/transfers.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/guides/create-mining-masternodes-in-ubuntu-linux-with-matrix-ai-network
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the network is described as the basis of the masternode/staking mechanics and state storage.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the MAN token/coin exists.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/faq-of-matrix-ai-network/15.-is-man-still-an-erc20-token-where-can-i-store-man , https://etherscan.io/token/0xe25bcec5d3801ce3a794079bf94adf1b8ccd802d
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are direct mentions of MAN and a contract in the explorer.
  • 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): cross‑chain transfer fees in the Wormhole guide are denominated in MAN (fixed/percentage).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/guides/matrix-mainnet-cross-chain-transfer-guide-bsc
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the official guide directly specifies the fee rules in MAN.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): running masternodes requires staking MAN (minimum 10,000 MAN; for a validation masternode — 100,000 MAN), and there are rewards.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/guides/create-mining-masternodes-in-ubuntu-linux-with-matrix-ai-network
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the guide directly specifies the staking thresholds and reward types.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the governance role of the MAN token is not confirmed in the extracted Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the reviewed sections contain no clear DAO/voting scheme.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): for participation in masternodes and for cross‑chain fees the guide uses specifically MAN, which reduces replaceability by “any” token.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.matrix.io/guides/create-mining-masternodes-in-ubuntu-linux-with-matrix-ai-network , https://docs.matrix.io/guides/matrix-mainnet-cross-chain-transfer-guide-bsc
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): protocol requirements/fees are tied to MAN in the official instructions.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://www.matrix.io/ Status/positioning of the project, a list of AI modules and network statistics (validators/staking).
Tier‑1 https://docs.matrix.io/intelligent-contract The existence and description of Intelligent Contract as a product/documentation section.
Tier‑1 https://docs.matrix.io/manta/manta-mainnet-miner-deployment-guide MANTA as distributed AutoML, details of the deployment and operation of the web service.
Tier‑1 https://docs.matrix.io/guides/create-mining-masternodes-in-ubuntu-linux-with-matrix-ai-network Staking thresholds (10k/100k MAN), the masternode launch process and reward types.
Tier‑1 https://docs.matrix.io/guides/matrix-mainnet-cross-chain-transfer-guide-bsc Cross‑chain fee parameters and the address of the BEP‑20 MAN contract on BSC.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xe25bcec5d3801ce3a794079bf94adf1b8ccd802d Address and max supply of the legacy ERC‑20 MAN (Old Contract), the fact of the token’s existence on Ethereum.
Tier‑1 https://docs.matrix.io/general/important-announcement-on-erc-20-swap The fact of completion of the ERC‑20 → native swap (deadline 2023‑01‑26).
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/matrix-ai-network Reference profile/market aggregation (not used as evidence for key claims).
Tier‑3 — —

No comments to display

Back to top