Skip to main content

STYLE Protocol

STYLE Protocol (STYLE) — 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).

STYLE Protocol — an AI/Other | Infra | Gaming project (infrastructure for 3D assets/NFTs and claimed AI tools for 3D generation; Tier‑1 website), token (symbol: STYLE) on the Ethereum network.

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/infrastructure for connecting game assets and NFTs and using them “across games” in 3D (per the description on the website).
  • Who it’s for: for NFT holders/players and projects that need “asset interoperability” (claimed).
  • Why onchain/token: the STYLE ERC‑20 token on the Ethereum network is confirmed; the website claims that holding STYLE provides access to product features (claimed).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: connects an NFT and confirms ownership (claimed).
  2. The system does: converts/provides an asset for use in virtual worlds/games (claimed).
  3. The user gets: a 3D asset or the ability to license/use it (claimed).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the STYLE token on Ethereum is confirmed; details of the protocol’s onchain logic (other than the token) are not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  5. Token role (if any): the website claims that the token is needed for participation/access to the protocol.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name STYLE Protocol
Also known as (aliases) $STYLE
Logo (logo) ../assets/806_styleprotocol_logo.ico
Token symbol (ticker) STYLE
Category AI/Other | Infra | Gaming
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 0x9e91f79070926a191e41367d40ad582686f9e66d
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply 920,000,000 STYLE
Issuance fixed (max total supply)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) On the website: total supply 920,000,000 and tokenomics distribution (65% community / 23% product&growth / 12% team&partner; as claimed).
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI 3D asset/avatar generation
Use‑case (use_case) interoperability for game assets/NFTs
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 1 / onchain_score 1 / token_score 1 / evidence_score 2
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Per the Tier‑1 website, STYLE Protocol is positioned as infrastructure for “asset interoperability”: connecting NFTs/game assets, confirming ownership and using assets in different games/virtual worlds. The website also claims that holding the STYLE token provides access to the protocol and certain features.

The Tier‑1 website labs.style also claims AI tools for creating 3D assets from NFTs/images/text prompts and “AI 3D Agents” (claimed). However, no Tier‑1 tech description/quality metrics for the AI part were found, so the assessment remains conservative.

Features/modules

  • Connect NFTs (claimed): connecting and verifying ownership of NFTs/assets.
  • 3D asset usability (claimed): using assets in games/virtual worlds.
  • Licensing (claimed): the ability to license assets and receive rewards (a claim, requires details).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: an NFT holder connects an asset → gains the ability to use it as a 3D asset (claimed).
  • Scenario 2: a STYLE holder gets access to protocol features (claimed).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet (Ethereum).
  • Network/chain: Ethereum — for the STYLE token.
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees apply to operations with the token.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: a website/product services (offchain; details are not established) + the STYLE ERC‑20 token (onchain).
  • Where logic runs: product features — where exactly they run is not established per Tier‑1 sources; the token — onchain (Ethereum).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility (claimed): the website claims that holding STYLE provides access to the protocol and features.
  • Issuance/supply: max total supply 920,000,000 STYLE (Etherscan).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: typical ERC‑20 token and web product risks; details require separate verification.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (website).
  • Roadmap: — (no separate roadmap page is specified in links_*).

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: — (not established per Tier‑1 sources).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? the Tier‑1 website labs.style claims AI tools for generating 3D assets/agents (claimed), but without metrics/a tech description.
  • What is truly onchain? the STYLE ERC‑20 token on Ethereum is confirmed.
  • Why is a token needed? the website claims: STYLE holders get access to the protocol (claimed).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): the AI thesis is not confirmed by Tier‑1; which part of the protocol is truly onchain (other than the token) needs to be checked.

DecAI Fit component summary

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

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI is described as part of product functionality rather than as “roadmap‑intent only”, so a separate intent flag is not used.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://labs.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source claims AI use in products; intent‑only adds no signal.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The Tier‑1 website claims: AI is used for generating 3D assets/avatars from NFTs/images/text prompts and for “AI 3D Agents”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://labs.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source describes the purpose of the AI part (without metrics/a tech description).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No explicit public demo link/endpoint where AI generation can be reproducibly “touched” was found per Tier‑1 sources (only product descriptions).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://labs.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is a Tier‑1 description of AI products, but without an explicit “launch app”/demo flow.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Not applicable (AI metrics were not found).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Not found (an AI tech description is not established).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 tech description of the AI component.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: STYLE token: 0x9e91f79070926a191e41367d40ad582686f9e66d
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x9e91f79070926a191e41367d40ad582686f9e66d
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract is confirmed by the onchain 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 per Tier‑1 sources (other than the token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://protocol.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 addresses/a description of protocol logic are required.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 justification of onchain criticality.
  • 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, STYLE.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x9e91f79070926a191e41367d40ad582686f9e66d
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract is confirmed by the onchain 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): The website claims: STYLE holders get access to the protocol.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://protocol.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source explicitly states “Hold $STYLE and get access to a protocol…”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Incentive/collateral/penalty mechanics are not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://protocol.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website has a tokenomics distribution, but no protocol incentive mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A Tier‑1 description of the use of the token for governance was not found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://protocol.style/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit governance process.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Replaceability is not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no sufficiently rigorous Tier‑1 description of “why it does not work without the token”.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://protocol.style/ Positioning of the protocol for asset/NFT interoperability and the claim about access through holding STYLE.
Tier‑1 https://labs.style/ Tier‑1 description of AI tools/products (AI generation of 3D assets, AI 3D Agents) and the link between access and the ecosystem.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x9e91f79070926a191e41367d40ad582686f9e66d The STYLE ERC‑20 token contract (onchain fact).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “reproducible quality metrics/benchmarks for the AI part” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top