Skip to main content

PinLink

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 marketplace/protocol for renting DePIN resources (including compute/GPUs, storage) and for tokenizing infrastructure assets via an RWA model.
  • Who it’s for: AI developers/teams who need cheaper/more flexible compute; and owners of infrastructure assets (mining/compute) who want to monetize assets and/or sell shares.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain is needed to issue/trade RWA tokens on assets and to distribute revenue; the PIN token is used as payment for renting services and as a staking asset for participation in protocol revenue.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: a DePIN asset owner connects/lists a resource; an AI developer selects a resource and rents it.
  2. The system does: issues an RWA token (ERC‑1155) for the infrastructure asset and enables the sale of fractions; accounts for payments and protocol fees.
  3. The user gets: the AI developer — compute/a service; the asset owner — rental income and/or upfront capital from selling fractions; the buyer of fractions — a share in the revenue stream.
  4. Where the blockchain is: ERC‑20 PIN, RWA ERC‑1155 and the marketplace smart‑contract infrastructure (Ethereum).
  5. Token role (if any): PIN — the payment token in the marketplace + staking for a share in protocol revenue.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name PinLink
Also known as (aliases) PinLink Marketplace; PinLink Network; $PIN; PIN
Logo (logo) ../assets/118_pinlink_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) PIN
Category AI/Compute | DePIN
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) 2024-09 (Phase 1 “Opened Sept 2024”)
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x2e44f3f609ff5aa4819b323fd74690f07c3607c4
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking (revenue share))
Max supply 100,000,000
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) 80% Uniswap LP; 10% staking; 10% CEX reserve (per the website)
Governance company (PinLink LLC)
Admins/keys — (not disclosed in Tier‑1)
Audit yes (Hashlock; Hacken)
Bug bounty —
Team (team) Lukasz Orlowski (Chief Architect); Talal AlAmeen (COO); Jordan O'Neill (CMO); Fasih Hader (Lead Blockchain Engineer)
Funding (investors/funding) — (no Tier‑1 found)
AI component (ai_component) ML performance optimization for DePIN assets (PinAI)
Use‑case (use_case) tokenized compute/storage marketplace
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 1 / 2 / 1 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

The key idea is not only to rent out compute/capacity (as in conventional DePIN models), but also to tokenize the infrastructure asset itself via an RWA ERC‑1155, and then sell fractions of this ERC‑1155 to those who want to earn passive income from the asset’s revenue. Additionally, PinLink describes a Service User Rebate Model: part of the upfront capital from fraction/token sales is invested in low‑risk yield activities, and the proceeds are used as rebates (discounts/refunds) for renting users, lowering their costs.

Features/modules

  • RWA‑tokenized DePIN marketplace: listing/renting infrastructure resources.
  • RWA ERC‑1155 per asset + fractionalization of ownership/revenue shares.
  • Service User Rebate Fund (rebate model) from fees/sales capital.
  • Asset vetting: emphasis on enterprise‑grade and asset verification before onboarding.
  • PinAI performance optimization suite: ML tools for optimizing asset performance (claimed).
  • Staking PIN: participation in protocol revenue (claimed).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: an AI developer rents compute/a resource on the marketplace, pays in PIN → gets access to capacity, potentially a rebate that lowers the net cost.
  • Scenario 2: an infrastructure asset owner tokenizes the asset (ERC‑1155) and sells fractions → receives upfront capital to expand the asset fleet + continues to receive rental income.
  • Scenario 3: a participant buys ERC‑1155 fractions → receives a share in the asset’s revenue stream without buying the “whole” equipment.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet (e.g., MetaMask) and some ETH for gas; the PIN token for payment/staking (if you use these features).
  • Network/chain: Ethereum (mainnet).
  • Fees: Ethereum gas for ERC‑1155 purchases/sales and PIN transfers/operations, as well as protocol fees (fees on rentals and on ERC‑1155 sales are claimed to exist).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: ERC‑20 PIN; marketplace contracts; issuance/circulation of RWA ERC‑1155 for assets; revenue distribution contracts; staking contracts; web interface/marketplace.
  • Participant roles: DePIN asset owners (capacity providers), renters (AI developers/clients), buyers of ERC‑1155 fractions, PIN stakers, protocol operator/team.
  • Where logic runs: payments, ERC‑1155 issuance/transfer and share accounting — onchain (Ethereum); compute delivery/service quality and optimization — offchain (infrastructure/software).
  • Dependencies: Ethereum; DEX liquidity (Uniswap LP is claimed); offchain operators/asset providers; the risk model of the rebate fund’s yield activities (described conceptually, without specific addresses/strategies).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: PIN is used as payment for renting DePIN services on the marketplace; holders can stake PIN for a share in protocol revenue.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the protocol model describes payment and staking mechanics in PIN; at the same time, economically a payment token can in principle be replaced (see TK_4) if the protocol allows it.
  • Who pays fees: renters pay for services (in PIN) + Ethereum gas; ERC‑1155 buyers/sellers pay protocol fees (claimed).
  • Where fees go: part of the fees and/or upfront capital from ERC‑1155 sales forms the Service User Rebate Fund; the protocol also has fee revenue, part of which is distributed to stakers (claimed).
  • Issuance/burn: fixed supply of 100M (Max supply per the website and Etherscan). Burn parameters are not disclosed in Tier‑1.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: PIN staking (no slashing in public sources); the incentive is a share in protocol revenue.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: Tier‑1 on the website states the shares (80% LP / 10% staking / 10% CEX reserve); detailed vesting/locks are not disclosed in the current sources.
  • Treasury: not disclosed (Tier‑1).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: the company/team (PinLink LLC; Tier‑1).
  • How protocol parameters change: no public DAO process (Tier‑1) was found; an update process via the team/contracts is expected.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: the project’s website and social media (X/Telegram), as well as the docs (GitBook).
  • Keys/multisig: not disclosed (Tier‑1).

Security and incidents

  • Audits: audits by Hashlock (Oct 2024, token audit) are claimed, and there is a project page at Hacken (1 audit listed; details in the public excerpt are limited).
  • Bug bounty: not found (Tier‑1).
  • Incidents: no Tier‑1 postmortems/major incidents were found.
  • Threat model: smart‑contract risks (the ERC‑1155 marketplace and revenue distribution), risks of offchain asset operators (quality/uptime), as well as risks of managing the rebate fund (investment strategies and transparency).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (the marketplace is described as operational; the token is on Ethereum).
  • Key releases/milestones: Phase 1 “Opened Sept 2024” (protocol‑owned assets only); Phase 2 “Early 2025” (opening to third‑party asset owners).
  • Roadmap: phases 1–2 are described on the website (see links Roadmap).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: Ethereum (token and contracts), Uniswap LP (claimed), GitBook docs.
  • Partners: no public Tier‑1 partners/integrations beyond those listed were found.
  • Where it’s actually used: renting infrastructure assets and tokenization/fractionalization of RWA ERC‑1155 within the marketplace (described in the docs and on the website).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? A PinAI suite is claimed: “machine‑learning tools” for optimizing the performance/quality of DePIN assets (enterprise‑grade performance).
  • What is truly onchain? RWA ERC‑1155, fractionalization of shares, payments/accounting via the marketplace smart‑contract infrastructure on Ethereum + the ERC‑20 token PIN.
  • Why is a token needed? PIN is claimed as the payment token for renting services and as a staking asset for receiving a share of protocol revenue.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing (AI/ML is mentioned at the level of “suite optimizes”, but without metrics/architecture), token necessity (a payment token is often replaceable), offchain risks (quality/management of physical assets and of the rebate fund).

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 1
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/ML is described as an already existing part (PinAI suite, see AI_1), so AI_0 as “intent only” does not apply
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): by definition, AI_0=1 is set only if AI_1..AI_4 = 0
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the PinAI suite uses machine learning to optimize the performance/quality of DePIN assets on the marketplace
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 sources describe the purpose of the ML tools (performance optimization), but without technical details/metrics
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the marketplace is described as operational, but no public reproducible demo specifically of “AI optimization” (input→output/cases/parameters) was found in Tier‑1
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the existence of the product is not a demo of the AI module without a demonstration of AI optimization results
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are no quantitative metrics/benchmarks of PinAI effectiveness in Tier‑1
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): there is no public Tier‑1 technical description of PinAI (architecture/versions/models/interfaces)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there are only product descriptions without technical details of the AI part
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 PIN token contract 0x2e44f3f609ff5aa4819b323fd74690f07c3607c4 (the addresses of the main marketplace/ERC‑1155 contracts are not explicitly provided in the current Tier‑1 sources)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x2e44f3f609ff5aa4819b323fd74690f07c3607c4 ; https://pinlink.ai/terms-of-service
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the network and the onchain identifier of the token are confirmed; the marketplace infrastructure on Ethereum is claimed in the terms
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: issuance of RWA ERC‑1155, fractionalization of ownership/revenue shares and onchain circulation of these shares in the marketplace
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes ERC‑1155 as a representation of a DePIN asset and the sale of fractions
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: RWA tokenization/fractionalization requires onchain by design, but Tier‑1 does not prove that this cannot be implemented as a centralized marketplace/ledger
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink ; https://pinlink.ai/terms-of-service
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no direct Tier‑1 argument “without onchain, X breaks down”, only a design description
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has an ERC‑20 token PIN on Ethereum
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x2e44f3f609ff5aa4819b323fd74690f07c3607c4 ; https://pinlink.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token and contract are confirmed by Etherscan, the ticker/utility are described on the website
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_1..TK_4 (1/0)

TK_1 — payment for the service (1/0)

  • TK_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): AI developers pay in PIN for renting DePIN services/resources in the PinLink marketplace
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ (FAQ “utility of $PIN token”) ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 directly describes PIN as a payment method
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): holders can stake PIN to receive a share of protocol fee revenue
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ (FAQ “stake $PIN… share of protocol fee revenues”) ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink/tokenomics-and-utilization/revenue-model-and-usdpin-staking
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes staking as an incentive mechanic (revenue share)
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Tier‑1 does not describe governance via PIN
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/terms-of-service ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the governance process/voting is not disclosed
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the marketplace payment token and the staking mechanics could by design also be implemented via other assets (e.g., a stablecoin + a separate “stake token”), so the “necessity of PIN specifically” is not proven
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://pinlink.ai/ (description of utility without an argument “why only PIN”) ; https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 records the utility but does not prove irreplaceability
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://pinlink.ai/ description of the RWA‑tokenized DePIN marketplace model; PinAI suite; tokenomics (100M, 80/10/10); PIN utility
Tier‑1 https://pinlink.gitbook.io/pinlink detailed description of RWA ERC‑1155, fractionalization and the rebate model; mention of the PinAI suite (ML tools)
Tier‑1 https://pinlink.ai/terms-of-service statement that the interface leads to an NFT marketplace and smart contract infrastructure on Ethereum
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x2e44f3f609ff5aa4819b323fd74690f07c3607c4 PIN token contract, max supply 100M, Ethereum network
Tier‑1 https://hashlock.com/audits/pinlink Hashlock audit page + link to the PDF report (Oct 2024)
Tier‑1 https://audits.hacken.io/pinlink/ project page at Hacken (audit history available; project description)

No comments to display

Back to top