Skip to main content

Mira Network

Mira Network — 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).

Mira Network — an AI/Other | Infra project about “trustless, verified intelligence”: the whitepaper describes a network for verifying AI outputs by decomposing them into verifiable claims and reaching decentralized consensus among verifier models. Token: MIRA (BEP‑20 on BNB Smart Chain).

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: infrastructure that tries to make AI answers/actions “verifiable” through collective validation (consensus) and the issuance of result “certificates”.
  • Who it’s for: teams/products that want to use AI in more responsible scenarios (and reduce the risk of hallucinations/errors).
  • Why onchain/token: the token on BNB Smart Chain is confirmed per Tier‑1; an economic model with stakes/penalties and payouts is described in the whitepaper, but specific onchain logic (other than the token) is not confirmed per Tier‑1.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): Mira Flows (beta) https://flows.mira.network/ and a CLI/SDK example in mira-sdk-python https://github.com/Aroha-Labs/mira-sdk-python.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: submits an AI output (text/code/document) for verification or uses the “flows/LLM client” tools.
  2. The system does: (per the whitepaper) transforms the output into a set of independent verifiable claims, distributes them to verifiers and aggregates the responses until consensus.
  3. The user gets: the verification result (valid/invalid per claim) and a “certificate” (claimed to be cryptographic).
  4. Where the blockchain is: per the whitepaper, the role of onchain is recording results/certificates and incentives; per onchain facts, the MIRA token contract on BNB Smart Chain is confirmed.
  5. Token role: the existence of the token is confirmed per Tier‑1; specific token utility (payment/stake/slashing) in terms of “the MIRA token does X” was not found per Tier‑1 → —.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Mira Network
Also known as (aliases) Mira; MIRA
Logo (logo) ../assets/77_mira-network_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) MIRA
Category AI/Other | Infra
Primary chain (chain) BNB Smart Chain
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoSA (BNB Smart Chain; 21 validators)
Launch date (launch_date) 2025
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) BEP-20
Token contract 0x7839Fbfd09DaE4d0F15BfB36b8f16f7898FBE684
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) —
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) Aroha Labs
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI output verification via decentralized consensus
Use‑case (use_case) trustless verification of AI outputs/actions
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 4/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 3 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Mira is positioned as “trustless, verified intelligence” — infrastructure that is meant to reduce the risk of AI errors (hallucinations/bias) through verification of AI outputs not by a single provider but by a collective of independent verifiers.

Per the Tier‑1 source (whitepaper), the “network” workflow looks like this: candidate content is transformed into a set of verifiable statements (claims), then several models/nodes verify them and reach consensus; the result is packaged into a certificate. In parallel, a “flows/LLM tooling” product layer is publicly visible (Mira Flows beta and repositories in the Aroha‑Labs GitHub organization).

Features/modules

  • AI‑verification network (per the whitepaper): transformation of content into claims, distributed verification of claims by several models, consensus and a result certificate.
  • Mira Flows (beta): a web interface for creating/deploying AI flows (positioned as a “factory/marketplace/datasets”).
  • SDK/CLI (open-source): CLI/SDK examples for managing/executing flows (Python SDK/CLI).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1 (product team): wants to reduce the risk of errors in an AI assistant → uses the verification/flows infrastructure to obtain a verifiable result/certificate (as intended in the whitepaper).
  • Scenario 2 (developer): uses Mira Flows/SDK → runs a flow and receives the execution result (LLM orchestration).
  • Scenario 3 (node operator, claimed): runs a verifier model → takes part in verifying claims and receives rewards (the economic model is described, but the parameters in the passport are not established).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: access to Mira Flows (beta; an invite code may be required) and/or a local installation of the SDK/CLI.
  • Network/chain: onchain facts are confirmed for the MIRA token on BNB Smart Chain; the rest of the product logic is described in the sources as a “network/service”.
  • Fees: the whitepaper states network fees for verification; onchain fees arise when operating with the token on BNB Smart Chain.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components (per the whitepaper): a content‑to‑claims transformer, a network of verifier nodes (operators run models), a consensus aggregator, certificate issuance.
  • Participant roles: client (orders a verification), verifier node operator, network/orchestrator (task distribution and reaching consensus).
  • Where logic runs: claim verification is performed offchain (model inference). The whitepaper states that certificates/results are recorded cryptographically and that incentives/penalties rely on blockchain mechanics; specific onchain contracts (other than the token) are not confirmed per Tier‑1.
  • Dependencies: LLM providers/verifier models; for the token — the BNB Smart Chain infrastructure; the token’s onchain transactions show calls to LayerZero EndpointV2 (cross‑chain infrastructure).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Network fees (Tier‑1): the whitepaper states that clients pay fees for verified output, and the network distributes rewards to operators/participants.
  • Stake-at-risk (Tier‑1): the whitepaper describes a PoW/PoS hybrid: operators must hold a stake that can be slashed for deviating from consensus or for “lazy” behavior.
  • What is not yet established per Tier‑1: the specific model of the MIRA token (which roles/payments/stake are specifically in MIRA), issuance/burn parameters, distribution and treasury → —.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: — (no governance process/DAO/multisig was found per Tier‑1).
  • How protocol parameters change: —.
  • Where decisions are discussed: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: — (there are no public audit report(s) in links_*).
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: no confirmed postmortems/incidents were found per Tier‑1 → —.
  • Threat model: the whitepaper describes trustless verification, but the “full onchain architecture” is not confirmed by addresses/contracts; there also remain risks of centralized orchestration/access (invite‑gated beta) and risks of LLM provider/API key integrations.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the website/whitepaper are published; Mira Flows is available in beta status; the MIRA token is deployed on BNB Smart Chain.
  • Key milestones: deployment of the token contract on BNB Smart Chain (2025); public availability of the Mira Flows beta.
  • Roadmap: — (no Tier‑1 Roadmap was found per Tier‑1; links_* has —).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: Mira Flows (web product), SDK/CLI (GitHub); token on BNB Smart Chain; the token’s transactions show interactions with LayerZero EndpointV2 (cross‑chain infrastructure).
  • Partners: — (not verified per Tier‑1).
  • Where it’s actually used: the Flows beta and the SDK/CLI examples are reproducibly available; the “verification network” is confirmed at the whitepaper level (without onchain addresses of the logic).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? Verification of AI outputs via several verifier models and consensus on claims (described in the whitepaper), plus public tools for LLM flows/orchestration (Flows/SDK).
  • What is truly onchain? The MIRA token contract on BNB Smart Chain (a Tier‑1 onchain fact). The full “verification onchain” logic (certificates/consensus/settlement) is not confirmed per Tier‑1 by addresses/contracts.
  • Why is a token needed? The existence of the token is confirmed per Tier‑1; the specific mandatory functions of the MIRA token (payment/stake/slashing specifically in MIRA) are not established → —.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): a strong “trustless verification” thesis in the absence of publicly confirmed onchain logic contracts (other than the token); invite‑gated beta; the “verification network (whitepaper)” must be separated from the “flows tooling (product)”.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 4/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality high 3
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): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI verification is described as the core essence of the project, not as a separate “roadmap intent”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the existence of the whitepaper and public products makes AI more than just an intent.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the network verifies AI outputs by breaking content into claims and validating them via consensus among verifier models.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper describes the “transform → distribute claims → consensus → certificate” workflow.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): there is a reproducible public product layer, Mira Flows (beta), and SDK/CLI examples for managing/executing flows.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://flows.mira.network/ ; https://github.com/Aroha-Labs/mira-sdk-python
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): you can enter the web product, and there is a README with commands/a launch example.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — — (no published metrics/benchmarks of the verification system’s quality/errors were found per Tier‑1)
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without numbers and context, the component is not counted.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the architecture of the verification network (claim transformation, distributed verification, consensus, certificates) and the PoW/PoS economic model are described.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper contains the “Network Architecture” and “Economic Security Model” sections.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: BNB Smart Chain.
  • Addresses/identifiers: MIRA token (BEP‑20) 0x7839Fbfd09DaE4d0F15BfB36b8f16f7898FBE684.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://bscscan.com/address/0x7839Fbfd09DaE4d0F15BfB36b8f16f7898FBE684
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the onchain address of the token contract 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: — (other than the token, no Tier‑1 addresses of contracts/certificates/settlement were found).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper describes an onchain role but does not provide specific contracts/addresses.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: without Tier‑1 evidence of onchain logic (other than the token), it cannot be shown that the key value really “breaks down” without a blockchain.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a claim about being “trustless”, but no specific onchain artifact/addresses were found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, MIRA (BEP‑20), on BNB Smart Chain.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://bscscan.com/address/0x7839Fbfd09DaE4d0F15BfB36b8f16f7898FBE684
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the explorer confirms the existence of the token and the contract address.
  • 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): payment for the service specifically with the MIRA token.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — — (not found)
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper has “network fees”, but it does not say that these are specifically in MIRA.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): staking/slashing specifically of the MIRA token.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the stake mechanics are described as stake‑at‑risk but are not explicitly tied to MIRA → the component for “token necessity” is not counted.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the MIRA token is used for governance (voting).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — — (not found)
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): governance mechanics are not described in the available Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the utility of the MIRA token is not proven to be mandatory; payments/incentives could work on another asset.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper has a fees/stake model without an explicit tie to the specific MIRA token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://mira.network/research/mira-whitepaper.pdf The “AI output verification” architecture: decomposition into claims, distributed verification, consensus, “certificate” + the economic model (fees, stake‑at‑risk).
Tier‑1 https://mira.network/ Positioning of Mira as “Trustless, verified intelligence” (official website).
Tier‑1 https://flows.mira.network/ Public product layer (Mira Flows beta) — demo/artifact for AI_2.
Tier‑1 https://github.com/Aroha-Labs/mira-sdk-python README with CLI/SDK examples of working with flows — a reproducible example for AI_2.
Tier‑1 https://github.com/Aroha-Labs/mira-network Public repository: Mira Client (router/console/CLI) and a description of the components.
Tier‑1 https://bscscan.com/address/0x7839Fbfd09DaE4d0F15BfB36b8f16f7898FBE684 Onchain confirmation of the MIRA token (BEP‑20) on BNB Smart Chain and the contract address.

No comments to display

Back to top