Skip to main content

SOLAV

SOLAV — 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).

SOLAV — a project on the Ethereum network (ERC‑20), token (symbol: SOLAV).

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/ecosystem for authentication and tracking ownership of works of art using the blockchain (per the project’s claim).
  • Who it’s for: collectors, galleries and art market participants (per the project’s claim).
  • Why onchain/token: per the project’s claim, the token is used for staking (nodes/promotion) and voting in the ecosystem; onchain ensures the verifiability of the token state and related actions.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: creates/registers an art object and uses the verification mechanism (per the project’s claim).
  2. The system does: records and displays ownership/transfer and identity data (per the project’s claim).
  3. The user gets: a verifiable history of ownership and identification.
  4. Where the blockchain is: onchain — the ERC‑20 token and public contract data; other onchain/offchain logic requires separate verification.
  5. Token role: staking and voting (per the project’s claim).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name SOLAV
Also known as (aliases) Solution of Art Value
Logo (logo) —
Token symbol (ticker) SOLAV
Category 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 0xfc5e4ed56153b57aa8ef769eba3e79e58e19be93
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking + governance)
Max supply 1 000 000 000
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Staking (nodes/promotion) and voting based on token holdings are claimed.
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) authentication + tracking ownership of art objects
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 2 / evidence_score 2
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Per the Tier‑1 description, the SOLAV project claims infrastructure for authentication and tracking ownership of works of art (including verification, tracking and related services). No grounds for considering the project AI‑native were found per Tier‑1; DecAI Fit therefore equals 0/6 under the SSOT rule.

Features/modules

  • Authentication and verification of art objects (per the project’s claim).
  • Tracking ownership/transfers “on the blockchain” (per the project’s claim).
  • “phygital NFT / NFC/QR” components (per the project’s claim).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a collector checks the provenance/ownership of an object and sees its history (per the project’s claim).
  • Scenario 2: an ecosystem participant stakes tokens to participate as a node/for promotion (per the project’s claim).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an Ethereum wallet; access to product interfaces — not established (no Tier‑1 confirmation found).
  • Network/chain: Ethereum (ERC‑20).
  • Fees: onchain Ethereum fees; product fees — not established.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the ERC‑20 token contract; website and docs (per the project’s claim).
  • Participant roles: users/ecosystem participants.
  • Where logic runs: the onchain/offchain part is not established (no Tier‑1 confirmation found), other than the token.
  • Dependencies: Ethereum RPC; other dependencies — not established.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: per the Tier‑1 claim — staking for nodes/partners and voting based on holdings.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the token’s participation in ecosystem mechanics is claimed; the exact extent to which it is mandatory requires re‑checking.
  • Who pays fees: not established (no Tier‑1 confirmation found).
  • Where fees go: not established.
  • Issuance/burn: fixed supply (1 000 000 000) — per the project’s claim.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: staking (nodes/promotion) is claimed.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: not found (no Tier‑1 confirmation identified).
  • Treasury: not found (no Tier‑1 confirmation identified).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: not found (no Tier‑1 confirmation identified).
  • How protocol parameters change: not found.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: not found.
  • Keys/multisig: not found.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: not found (no Tier‑1 confirmation identified).
  • Bug bounty: not found.
  • Incidents: not found.
  • Threat model: not established; it is important to double‑check which data and which actions are actually recorded onchain.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: website/docs available; onchain token — mainnet.
  • Key releases/milestones: not found (no Tier‑1 confirmation identified).
  • Roadmap: the link is in links_*; task details require re‑checking.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: not established (no Tier‑1 confirmation found).
  • Partners: the website has a “partners” section, but their roles/integrations require re‑checking.
  • Where it’s actually used: not established.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? No claims about an AI component of the product were found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • What is truly onchain? The ERC‑20 token and its contract are confirmed onchain.
  • Why is a token needed? Per the Tier‑1 claim, the token is used for staking and voting in the ecosystem.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI label/AI associations without Tier‑1 confirmations; the onchain part of the product (other than the token) and the actual necessity of the token require re‑checking.

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 medium 2
Evidence Tier‑1 present 2
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0 Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 intent/roadmap about AI was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit AI roadmap/AI claim in Tier‑1, which was not found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0 Claim (one line): What exactly the AI component does is not established per Tier‑1 (no Tier‑1 confirmation found).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no AI description of the product.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No demo of AI features was found in Tier‑1 (there is no AI component).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There are no AI features confirmed by Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: not applicable (the AI component is not confirmed).
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There are no AI metrics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A tech description of the AI component is absent (the AI component is not confirmed).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no AI architecture/version information.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0xfc5e4ed56153b57aa8ef769eba3e79e58e19be93
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/ ; https://etherscan.io/token/0xFC5E4ED56153b57AA8Ef769EbA3E79e58e19Be93
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website has a link to Etherscan and specifies the supply; the contract is verifiable 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 (no Tier‑1 confirmation found), other than the token; claims about “on blockchain” require specifics backed by artifacts.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires addresses/contracts/rules describing the onchain logic of the product.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0 “Replace the blockchain” test: the criticality of onchain for a key property of the product is not proven (Tier‑1).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit argument that the blockchain cannot be replaced without loss of meaning.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a claimed token, SOLAV (ERC‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/ ; https://etherscan.io/token/0xFC5E4ED56153b57AA8Ef769EbA3E79e58e19Be93
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website has a link to Etherscan and a description of the token economy.
  • 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): Payment for the service with the token as a mandatory mechanism is not confirmed (Tier‑1).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit pay‑per‑use mechanism with the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): SOLAV staking is claimed (for example, “stake to run a node” and “stake to be promoted”).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website describes staking scenarios as part of the token economy.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): Voting/promotion based on “votes based on token holdings” is claimed.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website describes the scenario “vote to be promoted by ecosystem participants”.
  • 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 (no Tier‑1 confirmation identified).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://solav.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit argument/design decision that the token is secondary and replaceable.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://solav.io/ Tier‑1 description of the mission/purpose (art authentication/ownership), token economy (staking/voting), total supply, and a link to the contract.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xFC5E4ED56153b57AA8Ef769EbA3E79e58e19Be93 Onchain fact of the SOLAV ERC‑20 token contract on the Ethereum network.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the product has an AI component” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top