Skip to main content

Reploy

Reploy (RAI) — 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).

Reploy — an AI/Models / AI/API project: provides an API and “Web3 enabled LLMs” for building dApps/agents/tools with blockchain context (website/docs). Onchain, the RAI token (ERC‑20 on Ethereum) is confirmed.

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: AI APIs/models oriented toward Web3 use cases (chat completions, embeddings, tools, etc.).
  • Who it’s for: developers of Web3 products and AI agents.
  • Why onchain/token: the RAI token is used as a utility (including staking for access to premium API/limits — a claim in the docs); the AI service itself runs offchain.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): the Reploy Sandbox on the website + Quick Start/API Reference in the docs.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: obtains an API key and calls the API endpoints (docs).
  2. The system does: processes requests to LLM models/tools (for example, chat completions/generation/web3 function calls — per the website/docs).
  3. The user gets: responses/actions oriented toward Web3 use cases (for example, “blockchain queries/tools” — claim) (website).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the RAI token on Ethereum is confirmed onchain; the web3 data/tools in the product are offchain integrations (website/docs).
  5. Token role (if any): the docs claim: stake RAI for premium API features and increased rate limits; a revenue share is also claimed (tokenomics docs).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Reploy
Also known as (aliases) Reploy AI, $RAI, RAI
Logo (logo) —
Token symbol (ticker) RAI
Category AI/Models | AI/API | AI/Agents
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 0xc575BD129848Ce06A460A19466c30E1D0328F52C
Token model (token_type) utility (governance)
Max supply 10,000,000 RAI (Etherscan)
Issuance fixed (per Etherscan Max Total Supply)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) 48% of total supply in circulation (claim); 14% treasury (claim)
Governance — (a governance utility is claimed in the docs, but the mechanism/venues are not disclosed)
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) Web3-oriented LLM APIs
Use‑case (use_case) agents/bots/dev tools for Web3
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 3 / 1 / 2 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Reploy publishes an AI platform with an API and “Web3 enabled LLMs”, oriented toward developers: dozens of endpoints are claimed (chat, embeddings, tools), as well as a “Sandbox” for testing calls (website). The documentation has Quick Start and API Reference sections, as well as a separate tokenomics section for $RAI.

Features/modules

  • AI API / endpoints: the Docs section “Build with Reploy” + API reference (docs).
  • Sandbox: an interface for testing requests/tools (website).
  • Web3 context/tools (claim): the website describes integrations and tools for web3 operations (website).
  • $RAI token (utility): staking for access to premium API features/limits (tokenomics docs).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a developer obtains an API key → calls the endpoints → integrates AI functions into a dApp/agent (docs).
  • Scenario 2: a developer tests in the Sandbox → selects a model/tools and parameters (website).
  • Scenario 3: a holder stakes $RAI (claim) → receives “premium API features / increased rate limits” (tokenomics docs).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an account/API key (docs); for the token — an EVM wallet.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum mainnet (for RAI).
  • Fees: API — offchain; onchain fees (gas) for operations with the token.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: Reploy’s offchain API/services + the onchain RAI ERC‑20 token (docs + Etherscan).
  • Participant roles: API developers/users; token holders.
  • Where logic runs: AI inference/request processing — offchain; onchain — the token and token transactions.
  • Dependencies: Ethereum for the token; Reploy’s infrastructure for the API.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: stake $RAI for premium API features and increased rate limits (a claim in the tokenomics docs); a revenue share is claimed (claim).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the utility is tied to API access/limits (tokenomics docs).
  • Who pays fees: users pay gas on Ethereum for onchain operations with the token.
  • Where fees go: to Ethereum validators (network fees).
  • Issuance/burn: max total supply 10,000,000 RAI (Etherscan).
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: staking is claimed, the details of the onchain mechanics are not disclosed in the extracted Tier‑1 (no staking contract addresses).
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: 48% in circulation; 32% public sale; 14% treasury (tokenomics docs) — without onchain addresses in the extracted fragment.
  • Treasury: “Project Treasury 14%” (tokenomics docs), addresses not given.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: — (a governance utility is claimed in the docs, but the mechanism is not disclosed).
  • How protocol parameters change: —.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: centralized dependence on the offchain API/infrastructure; the token utility (staking/revenue share) is not confirmed by specific onchain contracts/addresses in the extracted Tier‑1.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the website and documentation are available; the RAI token exists on Ethereum.
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: the section “Optimised and integrated with 40+ top on-chain protocols” is shown on the website without a list in the extracted fragment (claim).
  • Partners: —.
  • Where it’s actually used: the website claims 70+ million requests/month (claim).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the product is LLM models and an API for Web3 use cases (docs/website).
  • What is truly onchain? the RAI token (ERC‑20) on Ethereum is confirmed (Etherscan).
  • Why is a token needed? the docs claim: staking $RAI for premium API features/limits and a revenue share.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): offchain‑centricity (the AI runs as a service); absence in the extracted Tier‑1 of addresses of the staking/revenue‑share contracts; the claimed metrics/integrations require independent verification.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality high 3
Onchain necessity low 1
Token necessity medium 2
Evidence Tier‑1 present 3
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): There are signs of AI reality per Tier‑1 (see AI_1..AI_4), so the AI_0 flag (intent‑only) does not apply.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — see Evidence/links in AI_1..AI_4.
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0=1 is admissible only when AI_1..AI_4=0; here ai_score without AI_0 = 3.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the service provides an LLM API (chat completions, embeddings, etc.) and claims Web3‑oriented tools.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs ; https://www.reploy.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs describe the product function and the integration path.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): there are Quick Start docs and a Sandbox on the website for testing requests.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs ; https://www.reploy.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a reproducible entry point (docs) and example scenarios.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 1
  • Metrics: “under 400ms latency” (claim), “89% reasoning benchmark scores” for 14B Instruct (claim).
  • Context (version/date/how measured): the benchmark context/methodology is not disclosed in the extracted fragment.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the metrics are claimed in Tier‑1, but without a methodology/dataset and therefore only verifiable to a limited extent.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): docs on API integration and an “API reference” are published.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is technical documentation of the interface (API), albeit without open model code.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: RAI token: 0xc575BD129848Ce06A460A19466c30E1D0328F52C
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xc575BD129848Ce06A460A19466c30E1D0328F52C
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token address is confirmed by the explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: the extracted Tier‑1 do not give addresses of the staking/revenue‑share contracts; only the ERC‑20 token is confirmed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs/investors/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): without contracts/addresses, onchain logic other than the token cannot be confirmed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: the AI service runs as an offchain API; the role of onchain for mandatory access/distribution functions is not proven by addresses.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no proof that the product breaks down without the blockchain.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, $RAI.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xc575BD129848Ce06A460A19466c30E1D0328F52C
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token is confirmed by the explorer.
  • 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): access to premium API features and increased rate limits is claimed via staking $RAI.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs/investors/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token’s utility role for access is described, but the onchain staking mechanics are not disclosed by addresses.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): a “revenue share” for holders/ecosystem participants is claimed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs/investors/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the incentive is described, but without addresses of the distributing contracts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): governance is mentioned as a utility, but without specific procedures/venues.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs/investors/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): not enough specifics to consider governance confirmed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the token is claimed as key for access (staking) and value distribution, so replacing it changes the product model.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.reploy.ai/docs/investors/tokenomics
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the utility is linked to access and incentive mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://www.reploy.ai/ Description of the AI platform, endpoints/models and claims on metrics/integrations.
Tier‑1 https://www.reploy.ai/docs Documentation (Quick Start, API reference).
Tier‑1 https://www.reploy.ai/docs/investors/tokenomics Token utility (staking for API access), distribution (claim), revenue share (claim).
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xc575BD129848Ce06A460A19466c30E1D0328F52C RAI token contract, max supply 10M.

No comments to display

Back to top