Skip to main content

NodeAI

NodeAI — 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).

NodeAI — a project at the intersection of AI/Compute and a token economy around compute rentals; token: GPU (ERC‑20 on Ethereum).

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 where participants interact around GPU capacity rentals and staking/revenue‑sharing programs.
  • Who it’s for: users/teams that need compute (including for AI tasks), and token holders participating in staking.
  • Why onchain/token: the GPU token is used as a staking asset, based on which rewards (including in ETH) and a share of revenue are distributed.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: connects to the product/available platform features (Dapp) and, optionally, uses GPU tokens for staking.
  2. The system does: accepts the stake into a smart contract, accounts for the user’s share and (per the project’s claim) distributes part of the platform’s income among stakers.
  3. The user gets: participation in revenue sharing/rewards (including a claimed payout in ETH) in proportion to the stake.
  4. Where the blockchain is: token and staking accounting — onchain (Ethereum, the contract addresses are published in the official docs).
  5. Token role (if any): GPU — the staking asset for revenue sharing and “Stake & Earn ETH”.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name NodeAI
Also known as (aliases) Node AI; $GPU; GPU token
Logo (logo) ../assets/158_node-ai_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) GPU
Category AI/Compute | Infra
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 0x1258d60b224c0c5cd888d37bbf31aa5fcfb7e870
Token model (token_type) utility (staking + revenue share)
Max supply 100,000,000 GPU (Total Supply in the docs)
Issuance fixed (per the claim “Total Supply: 100M”)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) 90% liquidity / 10% CEX; 4% tax on BUY/SELL; a revenue‑sharing pool is claimed
Governance — (not explicitly described in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources)
Admins/keys —
Audit — (no public Tier‑1 reports found)
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) GPU rentals for AI workloads; AI API endpoints
Use‑case (use_case) token staking for revenue sharing/rewards
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 1 / 2 / 0 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

NodeAI positions itself as a platform for “nodes” and compute (in particular, GPU resources) with an economy around the GPU token. The official documentation describes the mechanics of GPU staking and the distribution of part of the revenue (“Revenue Sharing”), as well as a separate page with a claim about a specialized L1 blockchain for distributing compute tasks.

Note on the network (passport normalization): the passport lists the Ethereum network (per the token/contracts). The mention of an “L1 for task distribution” is kept in the text as a claim from the docs, without recording a separate network in the passport.

At the level of verifiable Tier‑1 facts, the docs publish the addresses of the token and related contracts (including staking), as well as tokenomics parameters (supply, tax, revenue distribution).

Features/modules

  • GPU staking (the staking contract is published in the docs).
  • Revenue Sharing: participation of holders in the distribution of part of the platform’s revenue (per the claim — via GPU staking).
  • Stake & Earn ETH: a payout of rewards in ETH to GPU holders/stakers is claimed.
  • Task distribution L1 (claim): a page about an “L1 Blockchain for Task Distribution” (without sufficient network/launch details at the moment).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user stakes the GPU token → obtains the right to a share of revenue sharing (per the project’s claim).
  • Scenario 2: a GPU holder participates in the “Stake & Earn ETH” program → receives rewards in ETH in proportion to the stake (per the project’s claim).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet (for example, MetaMask) and ETH tokens for gas if you interact with the smart contracts.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum mainnet (the GPU token and the contracts in the docs are listed for Ethereum).
  • Fees: gas on Ethereum; the docs also claim a tax on BUY/SELL trades of the token.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the GPU ERC‑20 token; the staking contract; the “Treasurer” contract (published in the docs).
  • Participant roles: GPU holders/stakers (participation in income programs); the team/operator (revenue generation and distribution per the claimed model).
  • Where logic runs: token and staking accounting — onchain (Ethereum); revenue generation (GPU rental / API) — off the blockchain; distribution — claimed as a platform mechanism with staking.
  • Dependencies: Ethereum RPC/wallets; the rest of the platform infrastructure (GPU rental) — offchain.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: staking GPU to participate in the distribution of part of the revenue (“Revenue Sharing”) and in the “Stake & Earn ETH” program.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources, the necessity of the token for paying for GPU rentals is not explicitly formulated; however, the token is explicitly described as a staking asset for participating in income.
  • Who pays fees: users pay Ethereum gas for onchain operations; when trading the token, the project claims a BUY/SELL tax.
  • Where fees/the tax go: the docs claim a 4% tax on BUY/SELL, distributed to GPU expansion & maintenance / marketing / revenue sharing pool.
  • Issuance/burn: the docs state a Total Supply of 100M; burn mechanics are not described on the reviewed pages.
  • Incentive mechanisms: staking (the contract is published). Slashing/penalties are not described.
  • Distribution: the docs state “Liquidity 90% / CEX 10%” and “No team tokens” (claim).
  • Treasury: the “Treasurer Contract” address is published; the treasury management mechanism is not disclosed.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: not explicitly described in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources.
  • How protocol parameters change: no public governance process was found in the docs.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: no public Tier‑1 reports found.
  • Bug bounty: not found.
  • Incidents: not found in the reviewed sources.
  • Threat model (brief): the risks relate to the security of the staking contract and to the fact that revenue and its distribution depend on offchain operations/accounting.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: token/contracts — Ethereum mainnet; product/features — available via the website/Dapp (per the links in the docs).
  • Roadmap: https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/intro/roadmap

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: EVM wallets; Ethereum infrastructure.
  • Where it’s actually used: staking/token accounting — onchain; GPU rentals and API services — claimed as revenue sources in the docs (offchain).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The Tier‑1 docs mention AI node rentals, on-demand GPU resources and AI API endpoints as the platform’s revenue sources. This is rather infrastructure for AI tasks (compute) than an “own AI model/algorithm”.
  • What is truly onchain? The GPU token (ERC‑20) and related contracts (including the staking contract) with published addresses.
  • Why is a token needed? For participation in the Revenue Sharing and “Stake & Earn ETH” programs via GPU staking; the necessity of the token as the only way to pay for compute is not proven in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): “AI‑washing” risk (the project is about compute for AI, but without a technical description of AI models/metrics); “onchain‑washing” risk (an important part of the economy — revenue — is formed offchain). What to double‑check: how exactly revenue is calculated and distributed; the terms and security of the staking contract; whether there are actually working AI APIs/GPU rentals paid in GPU.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality low 1
Onchain necessity medium 2
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 features are described as working parts of the product, not only as an “intent in the roadmap”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 applies when there is only an intent without working signs; here there are descriptions of functionality, so AI_0 is not used.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the platform earns from renting out AI nodes/compute and selling AI API endpoints.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes specific AI‑oriented services (rentals/endpoints), which is sufficient for “what the AI does” at the product level.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a public demo showing the AI component in operation (inference/endpoint/results) was not found in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/useful-links (there is a link to the Dapp, but without a demo of AI results)
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the existence of a Dapp by itself is not a demo of AI operation; examples of requests/responses/inference or AI node rental scenarios are needed.
  • 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): no benchmarks/quality metrics of the AI subsystems were found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): there is a description of an “L1 for task distribution”, but no technical description of AI models/versions/architecture of the AI component.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/layer-1-blockchain
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_4 requires technical details of the AI part (architecture/model versions), not only a description of the blockchain layer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: Token 0x1258d60b224c0c5cd888d37bbf31aa5fcfb7e870; Staking 0xF4dA885744b6f3107CE13d2d30383dCe2eeA6C85; Treasurer 0xeeDb5609347C40aA1FF6EC1e88704452e857BBE0
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/useful-links
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the published contract addresses and network sufficiently confirm the existence of an onchain part.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: staking of the GPU token for participation in revenue sharing/rewards (not only token issuance/transfer).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/useful-links ; https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/stake-and-earn
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the existence of a separate staking contract and a description of the mechanics is sufficient to consider that the onchain logic is not limited to the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: GPU/AI API rentals and revenue distribution could conceptually be implemented via a regular DB/payment system; the docs contain no strict justification that without the blockchain the product “breaks down”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no explicit argument for the necessity of trustless properties (settlement/verifiability) as a critical part of the product.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, GPU (ERC‑20 on Ethereum).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/intro/tokenomics ; https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/useful-links
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token and the contract address are published in the docs.
  • 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 direct statement was found in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources that GPU/AI endpoint rentals are necessarily paid in the GPU token.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the mention of a “proprietary currency” and of revenue sources does not amount to proof of mandatory payment in the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): GPU staking is used as a mechanism for participating in revenue distribution and receiving rewards (including in ETH).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing ; https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/stake-and-earn
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): staking is directly described as a condition for participation/rewards.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): governance mechanics using the GPU token were not found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no description of voting/a DAO/token rights.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the staking/revenue distribution mechanics could also be implemented with another asset (for example, a stablecoin/subscription) if the dependency on the own token were removed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 does not show a property that requires specifically the own token (rather than any accounting/payment asset).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/intro/tokenomics tokenomics parameters (Total Supply 100M; tax; token contract address)
Tier‑1 https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/useful-links published addresses of the token/staking/treasurer contracts; the official Dapp
Tier‑1 https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/revenue-sharing description of revenue sharing and revenue sources (AI node rentals, GPU resources, AI API endpoints)
Tier‑1 https://docs.nodes.ai/docs/features/stake-and-earn description of the “Stake & Earn ETH” mechanics via GPU staking
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/nodeai reference profile of the token (not proof of technology)
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/node-ai/ reference profile of the token (not proof of technology)

No comments to display

Back to top