Roseon
Roseon — 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).
Roseon — a project with an onchain token artifact on the Arbitrum One network, token (symbol: —).
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 project with a Tier‑1 website/whitepaper/repository and an onchain token contract on Arbitrum One; product details were not verified.
- Who it’s for: not established.
- Why onchain/token: a token contract on Arbitrum One is recorded; the necessity of onchain/the token for the product is not established per Tier‑1.
How it works (very briefly)
- The user does: — (no unified “quickstart” was found per Tier‑1).
- The system does: —.
- The user gets: —.
- Where the blockchain is: the token contract on Arbitrum One.
- Token role (if any): the existence of the token is established per the contract; the token utility is not established per Tier‑1.
Quick links: AI thesis fit
Project passport
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Project name | Roseon |
| Also known as (aliases) | — |
| Logo (logo) | ../assets/727_roseon_logo.svg |
| Token symbol (ticker) | — |
| Category | — |
| Primary chain (chain) | Arbitrum One |
| Type | EVM |
| Network status | mainnet |
| Consensus (consensus) | L2 (Optimistic Rollup, Arbitrum One on Ethereum) |
| Launch date (launch_date) | — |
| Project status (status) | — |
| Token (standard) | ERC-20 |
| Token contract | 0xdc8184ba488e949815d4aafb35b3c56ad03b4179 |
| Token model (token_type) | — |
| Max supply | — |
| Issuance | — |
| Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) | — |
| Governance | — |
| Admins/keys | — |
| Audit | yes |
| Bug bounty | — |
| Team (team) | — |
| Funding (investors/funding) | — |
| AI component (ai_component) | — |
| Use‑case (use_case) | — |
| DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit | 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0) |
| DecAI Fit component summary | ai_score 0 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 0 / evidence_score 1 |
| Last verified | 2026-02-11 |
Links (links_*)
| Type | Link |
|---|---|
| Website | https://roseon.world |
| Docs | https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper/whitepaper/master |
| GitHub | https://github.com/Rosefintech/Rosefintech-Security |
| Releases / Changelog | https://github.com/Rosefintech/Rosefintech-Security/commits |
| Whitepaper | https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper |
| Roadmap | https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper/whitepaper/roadmap |
| Security advisories | https://github.com/Rosefintech/Rosefintech-Security/security |
| Explorer | https://arbiscan.io/token/0xdc8184ba488e949815d4aafb35b3c56ad03b4179 |
| X | https://twitter.com/RoseonExchange |
| Discord | https://discord.com/invite/bzFWpBAfWv |
| Telegram | https://t.me/Roseon |
| Medium | — |
| Audit report(s) | https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper/whitepaper/audit |
| Bug bounty | — |
| CoinGecko (profile, reference) | — |
| CoinMarketCap (profile, reference) | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/roseon/ |
General project overview
Roseon has a Tier‑1 website, whitepaper and a public repository, as well as an onchain token artifact on the Arbitrum One network. In this card, conclusions on AI/onchain/token are drawn conservatively: without direct Tier‑1 confirmations of an AI component and the necessity of the token, the corresponding flags are set to 0.
Features/modules
- Whitepaper: A Tier‑1 document for checking the project’s claims.
- Public GitHub: development artifacts.
- Audits: a link to the audit section/page in the Tier‑1 documentation.
- Token on Arbitrum One: an observable onchain artifact.
Typical scenarios
- Scenario 1: a user studies the whitepaper → checks what exactly is claimed about the product/token.
- Scenario 2: a user checks the token contract → uses the explorer to view the address and basic parameters.
Getting started (wallet/network)
- What you need: a wallet supporting Arbitrum One (for operations with the token).
- Network/chain: Arbitrum One.
- Fees: Arbitrum One network fees apply to transactions with the token.
Architecture/tech (non‑AI)
- Components: —.
- Participant roles: —.
- Where logic runs: —.
- Dependencies: —.
Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)
- Token utility: not established per Tier‑1.
- Protocol necessity drivers: not established.
- Who pays fees: token users (transactions on Arbitrum One).
- Where fees go: to L2 validators/the sequencer and validators of the underlying L1 per the L2 model (general principle; specifics are not established).
- Issuance/burn: —.
- Security/incentive mechanisms: —.
- Distribution and token issuance schedule: —.
- Treasury: —.
Governance
- Who makes decisions: —.
- How protocol parameters change: —.
- Where decisions are discussed/made: —.
- Keys/multisig: —.
Security and incidents
- Audits: see
Audit report(s)inlinks_*. - Bug bounty: —.
- Incidents: —.
- Threat model: —.
Project status and timeline
- Current status: —.
- Key releases/milestones: —.
- Roadmap: see the Tier‑1 roadmap in
links_*.
Ecosystem/integrations
- Integrations: —.
- Partners: —.
- Where it’s actually used: —.
AI component of the project
- What is real AI here? No confirmation of an AI component or AI intent was found per Tier‑1 (AI_0..AI_4 = 0).
- What is truly onchain? The token contract on the Arbitrum One network.
- Why is a token needed? The existence of the token is established per the contract; the necessity/utility of the token is not established per Tier‑1.
- Red flags (based on the information found): risk of AI‑washing; risk of onchain‑washing (if “onchain” boils down to the token only); what to double‑check: whether the Tier‑1 documentation contains onchain logic beyond the token and explicit AI‑intent.
DecAI Fit component summary
- DecAI Fit: 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
| Component | Level | Score |
|---|---|---|
| AI reality | low | 0 |
| Onchain necessity | low | 1 |
| Token necessity | low | 0 |
| Evidence | Tier‑1 partial | 1 |
Details
AI reality
AI_0 — AI intent (Tier‑1 roadmap) (1/0)
- AI_0 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): Tier‑1 AI intent is not established.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper ; https://roseon.world
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without explicit wording about AI intentions in Tier‑1, we set 0.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)
- AI_1 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): It is not established per Tier‑1 what exactly “the AI does” as a component of the product/protocol.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a specific description of the AI feature in Tier‑1, we set 0.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)
- AI_2 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): Tier‑1 demos/examples of the AI component are not established.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.world
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without an explicit demo surface for AI, we set 0.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)
- AI_3 (decision): 0
- Metrics: —
- Context (version/date/how measured): —
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): No reproducible set of AI quality metrics/benchmarks was found per Tier‑1.
- Conflict note (if any): —
AI_4 — tech description/architecture/versions (1/0)
- AI_4 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): A Tier‑1 tech description specifically of the AI component/model versions is not established.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper ; https://github.com/Rosefintech/Rosefintech-Security
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without an explicit AI tech description/versions, we set 0.
- Conflict note (if any): —
Onchain necessity
OC_1 — contracts/addresses/chain (1/0)
- OC_1 (decision): 1
- Chain: Arbitrum One
- Addresses/identifiers: token contract 0xdc8184ba488e949815d4aafb35b3c56ad03b4179
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://arbiscan.io/token/0xdc8184ba488e949815d4aafb35b3c56ad03b4179
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): The contract address and onchain history are observable via the explorer.
- Conflict note (if any): —
OC_2 — onchain beyond just a token (1/0)
- OC_2 (decision): 0
- What useful logic is onchain: not established (other than the token).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): No confirmation of onchain logic beyond the token was found per Tier‑1.
- Conflict note (if any): —
OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)
- OC_3 (decision): 0
- “Replace the blockchain” test: not established.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): OC_3=1 requires an explicit justification of onchain criticality; not found per Tier‑1.
- Conflict note (if any): —
Token necessity
TK_0 — no token (1/0)
- TK_0 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): The project has a token (contract on Arbitrum One).
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://arbiscan.io/token/0xdc8184ba488e949815d4aafb35b3c56ad03b4179
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of the token contract is a sufficient onchain fact for TK_0=0.
- 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): Utility as “payment for the service” is not established per Tier‑1.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a verifiable description of payments with the token, we set 0.
- Conflict note (if any): —
TK_2 — incentives/collateral/penalties (1/0)
- TK_2 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): Incentives/collateral/penalties with the token are not established per Tier‑1.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without Tier‑1 incentive mechanics, we set 0.
- Conflict note (if any): —
TK_3 — governance (1/0)
- TK_3 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): Governance use of the token is not established per Tier‑1.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): TK_3=1 requires explicit Tier‑1 governance mechanics; not found per Tier‑1.
- Conflict note (if any): —
TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)
- TK_4 (decision): 0
- Claim (one line): The replaceability of the token is not established per Tier‑1.
- Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper
- Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 justification of replaceability.
- Conflict note (if any): —
Evidence (table)
| Tier | Source | What it proves |
|---|---|---|
| Tier‑1 | https://roseon.world | Official project website (Tier‑1). |
| Tier‑1 | https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper | Project whitepaper/documentation (Tier‑1). |
| Tier‑1 | https://github.com/Rosefintech/Rosefintech-Security | Public project GitHub (Tier‑1 development artifacts). |
| Tier‑1 | https://roseon.gitbook.io/roseon-whitepaper/whitepaper/audit | Audit page in the Tier‑1 documentation (links to reports, if disclosed). |
| Tier‑1 | https://arbiscan.io/token/0xdc8184ba488e949815d4aafb35b3c56ad03b4179 | Onchain fact: the token contract on the Arbitrum One network. |
| Tier‑1 | — | No Tier‑1 source for claim “the project has an AI component or AI intent” was found. |
| Tier‑1 | — | No Tier‑1 source for claim “the token is necessary for the service/incentives/governance” was found. |
| Tier‑2 | https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/roseon/ | Reference token profile. |
No comments to display
No comments to display