Skip to main content

McPepes

McPepes — 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).

McPepes — a project with a claimed AI narrative/tools; a token on the Ethereum network.

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/ecosystem with claimed AI elements (details require verification).
  • Who it’s for: users/the project’s community.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain — token circulation and a verifiable contract address; the necessity of the token for the product requires Tier‑1 confirmation.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: interacts with the project’s claimed services/channels.
  2. The system does: performs the claimed function (details of the AI part are not confirmed by Tier‑1 metrics/architecture).
  3. The user gets: the result of the service’s operation (as claimed in Tier‑1 sources).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the ERC‑20 token and its contract on Ethereum.
  5. Token role (if any): described in the whitepaper; the necessity of the token for key features requires re‑checking.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name McPepes
Also known as (aliases) —
Logo (logo) ../assets/755_mcpepes_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) —
Category AI/Other | Meme
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 0x6bf765c43030387a983f429c1438e9d2025b7e12
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) —
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI elements
Use‑case (use_case) community/products
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 1 / 1 / 0 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Per Tier‑1 sources, the project has a whitepaper and a GitHub organization, as well as a token on Ethereum. No confirmation of metrics/versions/architecture of the AI component and of the protocol necessity of the onchain part, other than the token, was found.

Features/modules

  • The project’s claimed ecosystem/products (see the whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user interacts with the project’s products/channels and receives the claimed result.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet for interacting with the ERC‑20 token.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum.
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees for onchain operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the ERC‑20 token on Ethereum + offchain services (details not established).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Utility/tokenomics: not established per Tier‑1 within this check.

Governance

  • Not established per Tier‑1 sources.

Security and incidents

  • Not established per Tier‑1 sources.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (based on the availability of official channels/pages).
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Not established per Tier‑1 sources.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The AI part is claimed in Tier‑1 sources, but no confirmation of metrics/versions/architecture was found.
  • What is truly onchain? The ERC‑20 token and its contract on Ethereum.
  • Why is a token needed? Not established per Tier‑1: the specific protocol necessity of the token.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): no Tier‑1 metrics/architecture; no releases/tags; the onchain part appears limited to the token.

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 0
Evidence Tier‑1 present 3
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): AI elements/positioning are claimed on the official website/in the whitepaper.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.mcpepes.com
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): this confirms intent, but does not prove a specific AI component and its quality.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no sufficient Tier‑1 description of a specific AI model/algorithm at the product level was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mcpepes.com/whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a clear description of the AI part we set 0 (conservatively).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a public demo/examples of AI features in operation are not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.mcpepes.com
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): in the absence of a verifiable demo, we set 0 (conservatively).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: not found.
  • Context (version/date/how measured): not found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without numerical metrics and context we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no tech description of the AI component with versions/architecture was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a tech description, we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0x6bf765c43030387a983f429c1438e9d2025b7e12
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x6bf765c43030387a983f429c1438e9d2025b7e12
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token contract address and the network are verifiable via the explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: not established (other than the token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no Tier‑1 confirmation of onchain logic beyond the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: it is not established that the product breaks down without the blockchain.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a justification of onchain criticality, we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token (ERC‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x6bf765c43030387a983f429c1438e9d2025b7e12
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the existence of the token is verifiable via the explorer.
  • 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): no Tier‑1 confirmation of mandatory payment for services with the token was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mcpepes.com/whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): in the absence of an explicit mechanism for payment with the token we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no Tier‑1 description of incentives/collateral/penalties at the protocol level was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without incentive/collateral mechanics we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no Tier‑1 confirmation of governance via the token was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without a description of governance, we set 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): per the Tier‑1 description, the token appears to be an optional part of the ecosystem and is potentially replaceable.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mcpepes.com/whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 does not provide a strict justification of “why it is impossible without the token”, so we set “replaceable”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://www.mcpepes.com Official positioning of the project; intent regarding AI elements.
Tier‑1 https://mcpepes.com/whitepaper Project whitepaper/documentation (Tier‑1) as a source of claims about the product and token.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x6bf765c43030387a983f429c1438e9d2025b7e12 The network and token contract address (onchain fact).
Tier‑1 https://github.com/McPepes GitHub organization/repositories (existence of code, if relevant).
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/mcpepe-s Reference token profile (context).
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mcpepes/ Reference token profile (context).

No comments to display

Back to top