Skip to main content

Token Metrics (TM100 Indices)

Token Metrics (TM100 Indices) — 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).

Token Metrics (TM100 Indices) — a DeFi product on the Base network, a tokenized instrument (the token symbol is not established per Tier‑1 sources).

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 service/product “TM100 Indices” with a tokenized representation of a strategy and automatic rule‑based rebalancing (per the website).
  • Who it’s for: users who need a strategy/index “packaged” as a token and a non‑custodial ownership scheme (per the website).
  • Why onchain/token: it is claimed that the product is represented by a token via a smart contract; there is an onchain token contract on Base.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: uses the product token (per the description on the website).
  2. The system does: applies the rebalancing rules (the details of the algorithm/proof of execution are not verified per Tier‑1 sources).
  3. The user gets: a tokenized representation of the composition of the index/strategy via the token.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the token is located on the Base network (contract in links_*).
  5. Token role: the token is the carrier of the position/access to the product (per the description on the website).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Token Metrics (TM100 Indices)
Also known as (aliases) Token Metrics; TM100
Logo (logo) —
Token symbol (ticker) —
Category DeFi
Primary chain (chain) Base
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Base; Ethereum L2)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xCa4569949699D56E1834EFe9f58747Ca0f151B01
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) The token is described as a non‑custodial “wrapper” of a position/strategy; the details of the mechanics and risks require separate verification.
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) tokenized index/strategy with rebalancing
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

General project overview

On the official website, Token Metrics describes the TM100 Indices product as a set of rules/mechanics for automatic rebalancing and a representation of a position in non‑custodial form. No description of an “AI component” (in DecAIHub terms) was found per Tier‑1 sources — therefore the AI flags are set conservatively.

Features/modules

  • Indices/strategies: description of “TM100” as a product index.
  • Rule‑based rebalancing: automation based on technical indicators is claimed.
  • Non‑custodial form of ownership: ownership of the token/position by the user is claimed.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user uses the product token → gets a tokenized representation of the strategy/index.
  • Scenario 2: the product performs rule‑based rebalancings → the composition/parameters change (the mechanics require separate verification).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: a wallet that supports Base/EVM and access to the Token Metrics website/app.
  • Network/chain: Base.
  • Fees: Base/Ethereum L2 fees for onchain operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: web service + onchain contracts/token on the Base network (the architecture details are not established per Tier‑1 sources).
  • Where logic runs: not established per Tier‑1 sources (what exactly is onchain, other than the representation of the token/position).
  • Dependencies: —.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: the token is described as a form of non‑custodial ownership of a product position/strategy.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: detailed rules of the token’s necessity (TK_1..TK_3) are not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Issuance/burn: —.
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: —.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: —.
  • How protocol parameters change: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: not found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Bug bounty: not found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: separate verification of contracts, admin rights and upgrade procedures is required, since the product claims onchain components.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: active (based on the presence of the website/app).
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: —.
  • Partners: —.
  • Where it’s actually used: —.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? per Tier‑1 (official website/docs), an AI component in the DecAIHub sense is not confirmed.
  • What is truly onchain? the token/contract on Base (links_*), and the claimed non‑custodial “position” on a smart contract (per the website).
  • Why is a token needed? per Tier‑1, the token is used as a form of ownership of a product position/strategy; additional functions of the token (payment/incentives/governance) are not established.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI positioning in the name/marketing without Tier‑1 technical confirmations; a lack of public security artifacts (audit/disclosure/bug bounty) per Tier‑1 sources.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
Component Level Score
AI reality absent 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): A Tier‑1 statement about AI intent as a separate component is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website describes a product of indices/rules, but the intent of an AI component is not recorded as a verifiable claim.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 description of a specific AI module/model and its role.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): An AI demo is not applicable (AI_1=0).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The AI component is not confirmed, so we do not raise AI_2.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No Tier‑1 AI quality metrics were found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A Tier‑1 tech description of the AI component is not established.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website has no technical specification of the AI model/versions.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Base
  • Addresses/identifiers: token contract 0xCa4569949699D56E1834EFe9f58747Ca0f151B01
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://basescan.org/token/0xCa4569949699D56E1834EFe9f58747Ca0f151B01
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is an onchain token contract and an explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: per Tier‑1 sources, not established (other than the existence of the token).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The website claims a “smart‑contract position”, but the specific onchain logic/contracts are not recorded in this card.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: not found per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no strict Tier‑1 argument for onchain criticality.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): There is a product token on the Base network.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://basescan.org/token/0xCa4569949699D56E1834EFe9f58747Ca0f151B01
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract is confirmed by the explorer.
  • 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): No Tier‑1 confirmation of payment for the service with this token was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): On the website, the token is described as a form of ownership of a position, not as a payment token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): —.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): —.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Not established per Tier‑1 sources.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://www.tokenmetrics.com/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): A Tier‑1 argument/rule is needed for a conclusion about replaceability.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://www.tokenmetrics.com/ Description of the TM100 Indices product and of the claims about the rules/non‑custodial form of ownership.
Tier‑1 https://basescan.org/token/0xCa4569949699D56E1834EFe9f58747Ca0f151B01 Onchain contract of the product token on the Base network.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the product’s AI component (AI_0/AI_1)” was found.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “the role of the token as payment/incentives/governance” was found.

No comments to display

Back to top