NodeOps Network

NodeOps Network (NODE) — 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).

NodeOps Network — a DePIN / Infra project that describes itself as a permissionless protocol for coordinating compute resources (decentralized Cloud / Compute coordination layer) and orchestrating nodes/templates/clusters. The ecosystem includes tools for AI workloads (for example, Agent Terminal) and “AI‑powered” services (Security Hub — code vulnerability scanning). The $NODE token (ERC‑20, Ethereum) is claimed as the economic “backbone” of the network: bonding for providers, a burn→credits access model, restaking/AVS and governance.

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 protocol/platform for launching and managing nodes and compute infrastructure (decentralized Cloud / DePIN orchestrator).
Who it’s for: compute providers, node operators, developers and protocols that need infrastructure deployment/monitoring.
Why onchain/token: $NODE is used as the economic layer of access and accountability (bonding/restaking/slashing) and for governance (per the NodeOps documentation).

How it works (very briefly)

The user does: chooses a product (Cloud Marketplace / Console / Staking / tools) and deploys a workload or a node.
The system does: orchestrates compute resources and services, coordinating market participants (providers, orchestrators, etc.).
The user gets: working infrastructure (nodes/clusters/templates) and monitoring/management via the UI/services.
Where the blockchain is: the $NODE token is an ERC‑20 on Ethereum; per the tokenomics, access to services is paid via burn $NODE → credits, and providers must bond $NODE (per the docs).
Token role: pricing/access, bonding, restaking for verifiable compute, governance and incentive structures (per the docs).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field	Value
Project name	NodeOps Network
Also known as (aliases)	NodeOps, $NODE, NodeOps Cloud
Logo (logo)	../assets/226_nodeops_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker)	NODE
Category	DePIN \| Infra
Primary chain (chain)	Ethereum
Type	EVM
Network status	mainnet
Consensus (consensus)	PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date)	2025 (approximate “epochs” Q3 2025 in the docs; the exact protocol launch date is not confirmed)
Project status (status)	active
Token (standard)	ERC-20
Token contract	0x2f714d7b9a035d4ce24af8d9b6091c07e37f43fb
Token model (token_type)	utility (governance)
Max supply	Etherscan: 679,098,036.301999400011956224; docs: genesis supply 678,833,730 (conflict)
Issuance	dynamic mint/burn tied to onchain revenue (per the docs)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief)	burn $NODE → credits; bonding 2,000 $NODE + 200 $NODE per machine; restaking/AVS + slashing (per the docs)
Governance	DAO (as claimed in the docs)
Admins/keys	—
Audit	Halborn (link in `links_*`; access is restricted by a cookie banner)
Bug bounty	—
Team (team)	—
Funding (investors/funding)	— (the website has a “backed by” block, without terms)
AI component (ai_component)	AI-powered security scanning, AI dev sandbox
Use‑case (use_case)	orchestration + coordination of decentralized compute
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit	3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary	1 / 1 / 3 / 2
Last verified	2026-02-11

Links (links_*)

Type	Link
Website	https://nodeops.network/
Docs	https://docs.nodeops.network/Learn
GitHub	https://github.com/NodeOps-app
Releases / Changelog	https://docs.nodeops.network/Changelog
Whitepaper	https://atlasnetwork.xyz/litepaper.pdf
Roadmap	https://nodeops.network/about#roadmap
Security advisories	https://github.com/NodeOps-app/.github/security
Explorer	https://etherscan.io/token/0x2f714d7b9a035d4ce24af8d9b6091c07e37f43fb
X	https://x.com/NodeOpsHQ
Discord	https://discord.com/invite/HftrtmSsyW
Telegram	https://t.me/nodeopsxyz
Medium	—
Audit report(s)	https://www.halborn.com/audits/nodeops/nodeops-smart-contracts
Bug bounty	—
CoinGecko (profile, reference)	https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/node-2
CoinMarketCap (profile, reference)	https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nodeops/

General project overview

In its documentation, NodeOps defines itself as a permissionless protocol for coordinating DePIN infrastructure for compute (“general‑purpose Compute coordination layer”). Around the protocol there is a set of products: Cloud Marketplace (rent/lease compute), Console (no‑code launch of nodes and infrastructure), DeFi services and toolsets, including Agent Terminal (a sandbox for AI/agent development) and Security Hub (AI‑powered code vulnerability scanning).

The economic layer is claimed via $NODE: access to services is paid via burning the token with the issuance of “credits”, compute providers must bond the token to participate, and verifiable compute is promised via restaking/AVS and slashing mechanics.

Features/modules

NodeOps Cloud Marketplace: a permissionless compute market (rent/lease) and infrastructure templates (per the docs/website).
NodeOps Console: no‑code management of node operations and monitoring (per the docs).
Agent Terminal: an environment for experimenting with and deploying AI solutions (per the website/docs).
Security Hub: an “AI‑powered code vulnerability service” (per the website/docs).
$NODE economy: burn→credits access, bonding, restaking/AVS and governance (per the docs).

Typical scenarios

Scenario 1 (compute consumer): a developer rents compute → deploys a template/workload → gets managed infrastructure.
Scenario 2 (compute provider): a provider bonds $NODE → registers machines → earns from running workloads (per the docs).
Scenario 3 (security): a team scans code/repositories → receives a vulnerability report and recommendations (Security Hub — claimed).

Getting started (wallet/network)

What you need: an account/access to the NodeOps products; for the token — an EVM wallet.
Network/chain: Ethereum (the $NODE token); the protocol services are chain‑agnostic (claimed).
Fees: Ethereum fees for operations with the token; other fees depend on the specific networks/products.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

Components: the compute marketplace, console/dashboard, toolsets (Agent Terminal/Security Hub), the $NODE token.
Participant roles: restaking operators, node orchestrators, compute providers, users‑buyers of compute (per the docs).
Where logic runs: orchestration and products — offchain; economic discipline (bonding/burn→credits/governance) — described onchain structures.
Dependencies: EVM infrastructure for the token; AVS ecosystems (EigenLayer/Solayer/Symbiotic — mentioned in the docs) for slashing accountability.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

Token utility: burn $NODE → credits for access; bonding for providers; governance; restaking/AVS guarantees (per the docs).
Protocol necessity drivers: without the bonding/burn model, it is harder to ensure economic accountability and pricing of participation in the network (per the docs).
Who pays fees: Ethereum users for operations with the token; users/providers for actions within the products.
Where fees go: — (the docs describe a revenue‑backed mint/burn logic, but without specific onchain addresses).
Issuance/burn: “$NODE is minted when the Network earns” + a dynamic burn/mint ratio and caps (per the docs).
Security/incentive mechanisms: bonding (2000 $NODE + 200 $NODE per machine) and slashing accountability via AVS restaking (per the docs).
Distribution and token issuance schedule: distribution/vesting are described in the docs (community 47.5%, etc.).
Treasury: —.

Governance

Who makes decisions: DAO (claimed in the docs).
How protocol parameters change: governance votes, including the burn/mint ratio, bonding fees and emission configs (per the docs).
Where decisions are discussed/made: documents/community (Discord/X) and the governance section in the docs.
Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

Audits: Halborn (the link is given in this card), access is restricted by a cookie banner.
Bug bounty: —.
Incidents: —.
Threat model: economic model risks (revenue-backed mint/burn), risks of restaking/slashing integrations, as well as quality risks of the AI scanner (including possible false positives and misses).

Project status and timeline

Current status: an active product suite (Cloud/Console/Toolsets) + the token on Ethereum.
Key releases/milestones: —.
Roadmap: https://nodeops.network/about#roadmap

Ecosystem/integrations

Integrations: AVS/restaking ecosystems (mentioned in the docs), Cloud templates/marketplace, DeFi staking.
Partners: the website has a “backed by” block, but the details are not verified in this card.
Where it’s actually used: as an infrastructure layer/products (per the docs), without KPIs in this card.

AI component of the project

What is real AI here? The existence of AI‑oriented tools (Agent Terminal) and the “AI‑powered code vulnerability service” claim (Security Hub) are verified; there are no detailed technical details of the models/metrics.
What is truly onchain? The ERC‑20 $NODE on Ethereum; the tokenomics describe burn→credits and bonding/restaking as economic discipline.
Why is a token needed? For access to services (burn→credits), provider bonding and governance (per the docs).
Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing (no technical proof of models/metrics), dependence on external AVS/restaking stacks, a conflict of supply figures (Etherscan vs docs).

DecAI Fit component summary

DecAI Fit: 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis

Component	Level	Score
AI reality	low‑medium	1
Onchain necessity	medium	1
Token necessity	medium	3
Evidence	Tier‑1 present	2

Details

AI reality

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

AI_0 (decision): 1
Claim (one line): NodeOps claims an “AI‑powered” compute coordination layer and products for AI workloads.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node ; https://nodeops.network/products#agent-terminal
Why sufficient / why not (one line): this records the positioning/intent, but without technical confirmation of models.
Conflict note (if any): none.

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

AI_1 (decision): 0
Claim (one line): the available Tier‑1 sources contain no description of the specific AI models/algorithms with which the “AI‑powered” functions (for example, Security Hub) are implemented.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://nodeops.network/products#security-hub
Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a product‑level wording, but no technical description of the AI part.
Conflict note (if any): none.

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

AI_2 (decision): 0
Claim (one line): a Tier‑1 demo artifact that demonstrates specifically the AI model/quality (and not just a product page) was not found.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://nodeops.network/products#security-hub
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the page describes the service, but without a demo/metrics.
Conflict note (if any): none.

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

AI_3 (decision): 0
Metrics: —.
Context (version/date/how measured): —.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://nodeops.network/products#security-hub
Why sufficient / why not (one line): quality metrics of the AI scanner/agents are not published.
Conflict note (if any): none.

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

AI_4 (decision): 0
Claim (one line): there is a description of the products and the economic model, but no technical description of the AI part (models/versions/architecture).
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Learn ; https://nodeops.network/products#security-hub
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the documentation focuses on the protocol and products, not on the ML architecture.
Conflict note (if any): none.

Onchain necessity

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

OC_1 (decision): 1
Chain: Ethereum mainnet
Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 $NODE: 0x2f714d7b9a035d4ce24af8d9b6091c07e37f43fb
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x2f714d7b9a035d4ce24af8d9b6091c07e37f43fb
Why sufficient / why not (one line): Etherscan confirms the contract, decimals and max total supply.
Conflict note (if any): the docs give different supply figures (genesis supply) — a conflict.

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

OC_2 (decision): 0
What useful logic is onchain: apart from the ERC‑20 token, specific addresses/contracts for burn→credits and bonding/slashing are not confirmed (described conceptually in the docs).
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node
Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a description of the mechanics, but without onchain SSOT addresses/contracts.
Conflict note (if any): none.

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

OC_3 (decision): 0
“Replace the blockchain” test: compute orchestration is also possible in a centralized way; onchain is needed mainly for economic discipline (bonding/governance), not for executing compute as such.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Learn
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs describe economic accountability, but do not show that the product is impossible without a blockchain.
Conflict note (if any): none.

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

TK_0 (decision): 0
Claim (one line): the project has a token, $NODE (ERC‑20).
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x2f714d7b9a035d4ce24af8d9b6091c07e37f43fb
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the contract confirms the existence of the token.
Conflict note (if any): none.

TK_1..TK_4 (1/0)

TK_1 — payment for the service (1/0)

TK_1 (decision): 1
Claim (one line): access to services is paid via burning $NODE and issuing credits.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs directly describe “Access via burn and mint credits”.
Conflict note (if any): none.

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

TK_2 (decision): 1
Claim (one line): compute providers bond $NODE (2000 + 200 per machine) and may be subject to slashing via AVS/restaking structures.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs give specific bonding figures and describe slashing accountability.
Conflict note (if any): slashing addresses/contracts are not listed in this card.

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

TK_3 (decision): 1
Claim (one line): $NODE holders participate in governance (burn/mint ratio, emission configs, bonding fees, etc.).
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs describe governance participation and the list of parameters.
Conflict note (if any): onchain governance venues/contracts are not listed in this card.

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

TK_4 (decision): 0
Claim (one line): by design, $NODE is the protocol’s means of pricing/access and economic accountability (bonding/restaking) — it can be replaced only by changing the model.
Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node
Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token is built into burn→credits and bonding, i.e. it is not an asset “bolted on from the outside”.
Conflict note (if any): none.

Evidence (table)

Tier	Source	What it proves
Tier‑1	https://docs.nodeops.network/Learn	The definition of NodeOps as a permissionless DePIN orchestrator and the description of participant roles.
Tier‑1	https://docs.nodeops.network/Tokenomics/node	$NODE tokenomics: burn→credits, bonding (2000+200), restaking/AVS, governance, distribution and vesting.
Tier‑1	https://nodeops.network/products#security-hub	Security Hub as an “AI‑powered code vulnerability service” (product statement).
Tier‑1	https://etherscan.io/token/0x2f714d7b9a035d4ce24af8d9b6091c07e37f43fb	The $NODE token contract (ERC‑20) and max total supply.
Tier‑1	https://www.halborn.com/audits/nodeops/nodeops-smart-contracts	The claimed audit link (access is restricted by a cookie banner).
Tier‑1	https://atlasnetwork.xyz/litepaper.pdf	The whitepaper is listed on Etherscan, but the domain looks inactive/for sale (content not retrieved).