Skip to main content

MineBee

MineBee — 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).

MineBee — a project on the Ethereum network, token (symbol: MB).

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 with an ERC‑20 token on the Ethereum network; product details are not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Who it’s for: —.
  • Why onchain/token: the token exists (ERC‑20), but the necessity of the token in the product is not established per Tier‑1.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: interacts with the token (transactions/transfers).
  2. The system does: records operations on the Ethereum network.
  3. The user gets: a confirmed record of the operation on the blockchain.
  4. Where the blockchain is: onchain — the token contract and transactions.
  5. Token role (if any): not described per Tier‑1 sources.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name MineBee
Also known as (aliases) —
Logo (logo) ../assets/711_minebee_logo.webp
Token symbol (ticker) MB
Category —
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) —
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x8d8129963291740dddd917ab01af18c7aed4ba58
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply 5 000 000 000 MB (max total supply)
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) —
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) —
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 0 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 2
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

The project is represented by a token on the Ethereum network (ERC‑20). Details of the product, the AI component and the necessity of the token are not established per the available Tier‑1 sources.

Features/modules

  • —.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user transfers the token → the transaction is recorded on the Ethereum network.
  • Scenario 2: a token holder holds the asset at an address → the balance is visible onchain.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: a wallet for EVM networks.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum.
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees (gas) for transactions.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the ERC‑20 token contract (Ethereum), wallets/RPC providers.
  • Participant roles: token holders, transaction senders/recipients.
  • Where logic runs: onchain (the token contract) + clients (wallets).
  • Dependencies: RPC providers/Ethereum infrastructure.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: not described per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: —.
  • Who pays fees: users of the Ethereum network.
  • Where fees go: to Ethereum validators/stakers (at the network level).
  • Issuance/burn: —.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: —.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: —.
  • Treasury: —.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: —.
  • How protocol parameters change: —.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: No Tier‑1 audit report(s) found.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: standard risks of the token contract and EVM infrastructure.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: not established.
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: EVM wallets and Ethereum infrastructure.
  • Partners: —.
  • Where it’s actually used: —.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? An AI component is not identified per Tier‑1 sources.
  • What is truly onchain? The token contract on the Ethereum network and operations with it (Tier‑1: explorer).
  • Why is a token needed? The token exists, but its utility/necessity in the product is not described per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): Tier‑1 proof of an AI component and of the necessity of the token in the product is absent.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
Component Level Score
AI reality low 0
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity low 0
Evidence Tier‑1 partially present 2
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 AI intentions are not identified.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no verifiable Tier‑1 claim about AI plans.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): What exactly the AI component does is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no verifiable description of an AI feature per Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Demos/examples of the AI component in operation are not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no verifiable product demo in links_*.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Metrics/benchmarks were not found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A technical description of the AI part is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 documentation with model architecture/versions.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 contract: 0x8d8129963291740dddd917ab01af18c7aed4ba58
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x8d8129963291740dddd917ab01af18c7aed4ba58
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The onchain artifact (the token contract) is available 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: Not established (other than the token contract).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no confirmed onchain logic of the product 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 onchain.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no justification of onchain criticality per Tier‑1/2.
  • 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) on the Ethereum network.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x8d8129963291740dddd917ab01af18c7aed4ba58
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract is available onchain.
  • 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): It is not established that the token is used to pay for the service.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No description of the token utility was found in the available sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Incentives/collateral/penalties using the token are not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 description of the incentive mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): It is not established that the token is used for governance.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 description of governance mechanics with 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 is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no data to justify replaceability.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x8d8129963291740dddd917ab01af18c7aed4ba58 The ERC‑20 token contract and the Ethereum network (onchain fact).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the project has an AI component” was found.
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/minebee/ Token profile (for reference; not proof of technology).
Tier‑3 https://medium.com/minebee Publications/updates (claims require Tier‑1 confirmation).

No comments to display

Back to top