Skip to main content

Theoriq

Theoriq — 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).

Theoriq — an AI/Agents / Infra project on Ethereum, token (symbol: THQ).

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 for creating and managing “collectives” of AI agents (multi‑agent systems), with quality evaluation and incentive mechanisms.
  • Who it’s for: AI agent developers, users/teams who need “assemblies” of agents for a task; operators of nodes that perform checks/evaluations.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain is used for a registry/anchoring of critical artifacts and for economic security; the token — for fees, staking/incentives and governance.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: formulates a task and selects/launches a “collective” of agents (or an aggregator‑orchestrator).
  2. The system does: selects specialized agents, combines them into a collective, performs evaluation/optimization of the composition (via evaluators/optimizers).
  3. The user gets: the result of the collective’s work (analytics/actions/a report), while the protocol gets quality/reputation signals and anchored “proofs” of contributions.
  4. Where the blockchain is: Ethereum contracts are used for registration/accounting, token operations and anchoring of Proof of Contribution / Proof of Collaboration.
  5. Token role (if any): THQ is used for fees/payments, staking (including for nodes) and governance.

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Theoriq
Also known as (aliases) Theoriq Protocol; THQ
Logo (logo) ../assets/173_theoriq_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) THQ
Category AI/Agents | Infra
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) 2024
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xAffbe9A60F1F45E057fD9b6Dc70004BB0ccc8b99
Token model (token_type) utility (staking + governance)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 THQ (fixed), decimals: 18
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) THQ is claimed as a medium of exchange + incentives (staking) + governance
Governance governance via the token (as claimed)
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) Leadership & Research Teams (see the litepaper)
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) multi-agent collectives + quality evaluation
Use‑case (use_case) building + optimizing teams of AI agents
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 2 / 2 / 3 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Theoriq describes itself as a “base layer” for AI agents: a protocol that defines common primitives for agent compatibility (Behaviors), allows collectives to be formed (Collectives), their quality to be evaluated (Evaluators) and their composition to be optimized (Optimizers).

The focus of the litepaper is not “a single chatbot” but the cooperation of specialized agents, where the blockchain is used as a layer of transparency/accounting and economic security.

Features/modules

  • Agents / Behaviors: formal interfaces of capabilities (input/output specifications) for interoperability.
  • Collectives: compositions of agents for complex tasks; may include nested collectives.
  • Aggregators (Routers/Planners): orchestration of the collective’s work (task routing, planning, budget management).
  • Evaluators: quality evaluation (AI‑ and human‑based), issuance of Proof of Contribution.
  • Optimizers: optimization of the composition of collectives, issuance of Proof of Collaboration.
  • Profiles / Channels: profiles, metadata, logs and communication channels.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user launches a “collective” for a task → the aggregator splits the work → the agents use tools/models → a combined result is returned.
  • Scenario 2: a developer publishes a new agent → it is evaluated and receives quality/reputation signals → it becomes easier to find/use in collectives.
  • Scenario 3: a user sets their own quality criteria (custom evaluator) → the optimizer selects the composition of the collective according to the given criteria (per the protocol description).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an Ethereum wallet (if interacting with the token/contracts), access to the official documents/repository.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum mainnet.
  • Fees: Ethereum fees (gas) for onchain operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: smart contracts (Ethereum), offchain nodes (Theoriq Nodes) for performing evaluations/computations, client applications/interfaces (Infinity Studio/Infinity Hub — described conceptually).
  • Participant roles: users, agent developers, node operators, governance participants.
  • Where logic runs: the computationally heavy part (evaluations, optimization, execution by agents) — offchain; onchain — the registry/anchoring of artifacts and token operations.
  • Dependencies: Ethereum infrastructure; external AI models/tools; offchain storage (as options in the document).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: in the litepaper, THQ is described as a medium of exchange, an incentives mechanism (staking/rewards) and a governance instrument.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: staking/economic quality signals and security for nodes/participants; payouts/fees within the ecosystem.
  • Who pays fees: protocol participants (depending on the operation/service).
  • Where fees go: this card has no single public “one‑line” distribution scheme.
  • Issuance/burn: fixed supply of 1,000,000,000 THQ.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: staking mechanisms are claimed; slashing/threshold details are not recorded in this card.
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: per the official tokenomics page: Community 18%, Treasury 28%, Core Contributors 24% (3‑year vesting, 1‑year cliff), Investors 30% (see Evidence).
  • Treasury: —.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: governance via the token (claimed).
  • How protocol parameters change: via governance and contract upgrades (the general model is claimed).
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: public channels (X/Discord) and GitHub.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: standard smart contract risks + risks of manipulation of quality signals (raised in the litepaper as a problem and as the motivation for the “proofs”).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active development (public documents and repository).
  • Key releases/milestones: the litepaper (2024) and releases on GitHub.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: the litepaper claims compatibility with popular agent frameworks (LangChain/AutoGen/CrewAI) as a target direction.
  • Partners: — (no list of Tier‑1 partners in this card).
  • Where it’s actually used: an infrastructure layer for agent collectives (per the description in the document).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? At the center of the model are AI agents (autonomous systems) that plan, use tools/data and cooperate in collectives; evaluators/optimizers are singled out separately as AI agents for evaluation/optimization.
  • What is truly onchain? An onchain layer on Ethereum for registration/accounting and anchoring of cryptographic proofs, plus the token economy.
  • Why is a token needed? For fees/payments, staking incentives and governance.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): key computations and the quality of signals are largely offchain; no public audits in this card; the details of token distribution/vesting require re‑checking against the primary source (see the tokenomics page).

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality medium 2
Onchain necessity medium 2
Token necessity high 3
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 is described as a functional part of the protocol model, not only as a “plan”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 applies when there is only an intent without AI artifacts; here there is a description of functions (AI_1/AI_4).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): agents/collectives use models and tools to perform tasks; evaluators/optimizers evaluate quality and optimize the composition.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): specific functionality is specified (agents, collectives, roles, proofs).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the document contains examples of scenarios, but there is no verifiable public demo “via a link”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): examples in the text ≠ a repeatable demo/launch.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no published numerical quality metrics/benchmarks were found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): a modular protocol architecture (Behaviors, Collectives, Aggregators, Evaluators, Optimizers, Profiles, Channels) and a hybrid onchain/offchain model are described.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a coherent technical description of the components and their interaction.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: THQ ERC‑20: 0xAffbe9A60F1F45E057fD9b6Dc70004BB0ccc8b99
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xaffbe9a60f1f45e057fd9b6dc70004bb0ccc8b99
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token and its parameters are verifiable onchain.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: onchain contracts for registration/anchoring of “proofs” are claimed; there is a public smart contract repository.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://github.com/chain-ml/theoriq-smart-contracts , https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the onchain role is described and backed by code/the document.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: some of the transparency/immutability properties would weaken, but within this card there is no strict proof that “without the blockchain the product breaks down”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): insufficient justification for OC_3=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, THQ.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xaffbe9a60f1f45e057fd9b6dc70004bb0ccc8b99
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token exists onchain.
  • 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): THQ is described as a medium of exchange/payments and “network fees” within the protocol.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token utility is directly described as part of protocol operations.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): staking is used as an economic quality signal and as an incentives mechanism (including for node operators).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the staking role of the token is explicitly claimed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): token governance is claimed as one of the key functions of THQ.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): governance is described at the level of the concept and the token’s purpose.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the token is embedded in staking/incentives/governance; replacing it with a “subscription/stablecoin” changes the protocol model.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): per the description, the token performs protocol functions, not only payment.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6631eac002c5853093efa70c/66a26a64a4d588f0092e6843_Theoriq_Litepaper_2024JUL23r2.pdf the purpose of the protocol, the AI modules, the architecture, the role of the token
Tier‑1 https://www.theoriq.ai/tokenomics THQ distribution (allocation) and basic vesting parameters (Core Contributors)
Tier‑1 https://github.com/chain-ml/theoriq-smart-contracts the existence of public smart contract code
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xaffbe9a60f1f45e057fd9b6dc70004bb0ccc8b99 ticker/address/supply of the THQ token
Tier‑2 https://www.theoriq.ai/ navigation across the project’s ecosystem
Tier‑3 — —

No comments to display

Back to top