Skip to main content

Ties.Network (Ties.DB)

Ties.Network (Ties.DB) — 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).

Ties.Network — an Infra project on the Ethereum network, token (symbol: TIE).

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 decentralized business platform for “collaboration/deals” and a public distributed noSQL database (Ties.DB) for dApps (per the Tier‑1 whitepaper).
  • Who it’s for: traders/investors/developers/consultants (as the target audience in the whitepaper) and dApp developers who use Ties.DB.
  • Why onchain/token: onchain is used for deals via smart contracts and for reputational/public record‑keeping; the TIE token is described as part of the platform’s operations (per the whitepaper).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: creates a profile/publishes information/concludes deals via the platform.
  2. The system does: uses smart contracts for deals/escrow and stores a public index/data (Ties.DB).
  3. The user gets: partner search, deals and reputational/public data across the platform.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the onchain components are tied to smart contracts and the TIE token (ERC‑20).
  5. Token role: operations with the TIE token are described in the whitepaper (including for cryptocurrency trading on the platform).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Ties.Network (Ties.DB)
Also known as (aliases) tiesdb, TIE
Logo (logo) ../assets/679_tiesdb_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) TIE
Category Infra
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) —
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0x999967e2ec8a74b7c8e9db19e039d920b31d39d0
Token model (token_type) utility (payments)
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Tier‑1 whitepaper: operations with the TIE token within the platform are described; supply parameters are not established in this card.
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) business deals + public distributed DB (Ties.DB)
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 3 / token_score 1 / evidence_score 2
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

In the Tier‑1 whitepaper, Ties.Network describes a decentralized business platform for the crypto community with integrated deals on smart contracts and a reputation system. As an IT product, it describes Ties.DB — a public distributed noSQL database for storing large volumes of dynamic data and for full‑text search. No AI component was found in Tier‑1, so DecAI Fit = 0/6.

Features/modules

  • Profiles/search: profiles and partner search.
  • Deals/escrow: deals via smart contracts and dispute resolution (per the whitepaper).
  • Ties.DB: a distributed database and search across data/files.
  • TIE token: operations within the platform (per the whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user finds a partner and concludes a deal via a smart contract → gets escrow/a deal and reputational traces.
  • Scenario 2: a developer uses Ties.DB as storage/search infrastructure for a dApp → gets a public database/search.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet (Ethereum) and access to the project’s application/interface (not established in this card).
  • Network/chain: Ethereum.
  • Fees: Ethereum fees (gas) for operations with the token/contracts.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: smart contracts for deals/escrow, client/platform, Ties.DB as the data layer.
  • Participant roles: platform users, dApp developers, infrastructure operators (not detailed).
  • Where logic runs: onchain — deals/token; offchain — the interface/part of data storage/delivery (details not established).
  • Dependencies: Ethereum (smart contracts/token).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: operations/cryptocurrency trading on the platform using TIE (as described in the whitepaper).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the whitepaper describes the role of the token in the platform’s operations.
  • Who pays fees: users (Ethereum gas).
  • Where fees go: to Ethereum validators (gas).
  • Issuance/burn: — (not established).
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: — (not established).
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: — (not established).
  • Treasury: — (not established).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: — (not established).
  • How protocol parameters change: — (not established).
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: the absence in this card of Tier‑1 audits/addresses of key contracts (other than the token).

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: — (not established).
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: — (not established).
  • Partners: — (not established).
  • Where it’s actually used: — (not established).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? No Tier‑1 confirmation of an AI component was found.
  • What is truly onchain? deals on smart contracts (as described in the whitepaper) and the TIE token on Ethereum.
  • Why is a token needed? The Tier‑1 whitepaper describes operations with TIE within the platform.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing (if positioned as AI); onchain‑washing (if the smart contracts are not represented by addresses/code in Tier‑1); token‑washing (the role of the token in the protocol needs to be double‑checked).

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 high 3
Token necessity medium 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): No Tier‑1 AI intent was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The whitepaper describes a business platform/DB, not an AI roadmap.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI features are not described in Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no description of an AI module/model.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No demo of an AI component was found (an AI component is not established).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_2 requires a demo surface of AI.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI metrics are not applicable (an AI component is not established).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No tech description of an AI component was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The whitepaper describes the architecture of the platform/DB, not AI.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: ERC‑20 TIE token: 0x999967e2ec8a74b7c8e9db19e039d920b31d39d0
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x999967e2ec8a74b7c8e9db19e039d920b31d39d0
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract confirms the onchain artifact.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: deals via smart contracts, escrow/disputes and reputational record‑keeping of deals (as described in the whitepaper).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The whitepaper describes built‑in deals on smart contracts and a reputation mechanism.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 1
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: without onchain, the trustless execution of deals/escrow and the public verifiability of reputation/deal history break down.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The point of the platform is to eliminate a trusted third party in deals and reputation.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, TIE.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The whitepaper contains a “TIE tokens” section.
  • 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 whitepaper describes operations/cryptocurrency trading using TIE tokens within the platform.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The whitepaper lists “Cryptocurrency trade with TIE tokens” scenarios.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Staking/slashing/rewards with the token are not established in Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): 1 requires an explicit description of incentive/penalty mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A governance role of the token is not established in Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no explicit description of governance via the token.
  • 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.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): TK_4=1 requires a separate justification of replaceability.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://cdn.ties.network/white-paper-eng.pdf Tier‑1: description of Ties.Network, Ties.DB, deals on smart contracts, reputational record‑keeping and the role of the TIE token.
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x999967e2ec8a74b7c8e9db19e039d920b31d39d0 Onchain fact: the TIE token contract on Ethereum.
Tier‑1 https://github.com/tiesnetwork The project’s repositories/organization (development artifacts).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the project’s AI component” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top