Skip to main content

Trackgood AI

Trackgood AI — 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).

Trackgood AI — an AI/Agents | DeFi project on the Base network, token (symbol: TRAI).

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: an ecosystem of applications where the TRAI token is used for access to features, rewards and staking.
  • Who it’s for: users of the Trackgood/TrackFi applications, as well as brands/platforms that want to receive data/analytics via an API.
  • Why onchain/token: the token — for access/rewards/staking/voting; onchain — claimed for the immutability and verifiability of records/rewards.
  • What you can actually touch (Tier‑1): the TrackFi and Trackgood web applications (from links_*).

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: uses a web application (TrackFi/Trackgood) and performs actions/missions.
  2. The system does: collects/processes data and provides an interface/insights in the applications.
  3. The user gets: access to features and/or rewards in the TRAI token (as described in the whitepaper).
  4. Where the blockchain is: the TRAI token is issued on the Base network; the whitepaper claims onchain storage of records for traceability/anti‑greenwashing.
  5. Token role: access to premium features, rewards for actions, and staking/voting (per the whitepaper).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Trackgood AI
Also known as (aliases) Trackgood, TrackFi, Traicy, TRAI
Logo (logo) ../assets/625_trackgood-ai_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) TRAI
Category AI/Agents | DeFi
Primary chain (chain) Base
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Base; Ethereum L2)
Launch date (launch_date) 2024
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xdd32659B1e7a6A6B3C6e96Cd8a4c936bCfea0607
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking + governance)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 TRAI
Issuance fixed
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Allocation: 70% public / 20% private sale / 10% team.
Governance staking governance (details in whitepaper)
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) John Hussey (CEO) et al. (see whitepaper)
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI agent Traicy for ESG + trading
Use‑case (use_case) ESG data + trading insights
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary ai_score 2 / onchain_score 2 / token_score 3 / evidence_score 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Trackgood AI describes an ecosystem of applications around the TRAI token on the Base network. Per the Tier‑1 whitepaper, the project includes Trackgood.io (ESG/Scan‑to‑Earn), TrackFi.ai (an interface for trading insights) and the AI agent Traicy, which “powers” both products.

Important: below we record only the claims for which a Tier‑1 source was found (mainly the official whitepaper/website). Where Tier‑1 does not provide verifiable artifacts (for example, contract addresses for storing data onchain or model quality metrics), this is noted conservatively.

Features/modules

  • Trackgood.io: Scan‑to‑Earn and a base of “Journey Pages” (described in the whitepaper).
  • TrackFi.ai: a web application with “insights” on traders/signals (described in the whitepaper).
  • Traicy: an AI agent claimed as the shared AI layer for the products (whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user participates in Scan‑to‑Earn → receives TRAI rewards for actions (as described in the whitepaper).
  • Scenario 2: a user uses TrackFi/Trackgood → gets access to features (including “PRO”) when meeting the TRAI conditions (whitepaper).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: a browser and access to the web applications (links_*); when interacting with the token — an EVM wallet.
  • Network/chain: Base.
  • Fees: Base network fees for onchain operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the Trackgood/TrackFi web applications, the TRAI token on the Base network, a claimed enterprise API (x402).
  • Participant roles: users, brands/integrator platforms, TRAI holders/stakers.
  • Where logic runs: applications/AI layer — offchain; the token and some of the “records” — onchain (per the whitepaper’s claim; the addresses of the data contracts are not given).
  • Dependencies: Base (L2), EVM wallets, the web infrastructure of the applications.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: access to premium features (for example TrackFi PRO), rewards for actions/missions, governance and staking (whitepaper).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: per the whitepaper, TRAI is used as the “fuel” of the ecosystem: access + rewards + staking governance.
  • Issuance: total supply 1,000,000,000 TRAI; decimals 8; allocation 70% public / 20% private sale / 10% team (whitepaper).
  • Incentives: Scan‑to‑Earn/Verify‑to‑Earn and other reward mechanics are described as faucets; staking/xTRAI and access to PRO — as sinks (whitepaper).

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: the whitepaper claims governance via staking (without details of the process/governing body).
  • How protocol parameters change: not established per Tier‑1.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: not found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Bug bounty: not found in Tier‑1 sources.
  • Incidents: —.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the TRAI token is deployed on the Base network; the web applications are available (links_*).
  • Timeline (from the whitepaper): launch of the token and the AI agent — Q4 2024; Scan‑to‑Earn — H1 2025; TrackFi.ai — H2 2025; staking/governance — 2026+.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: a claimed enterprise API (x402) for integrating data/analytics (whitepaper).
  • Partners: —.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? Per the Tier‑1 whitepaper, the AI agent Traicy is described, which is used as the shared AI layer for Trackgood.io and TrackFi.ai.
  • What is truly onchain? The TRAI token is issued on the Base network; it is also claimed that some of the records/data are stored onchain for traceability (without a public list of the data contract addresses in the source).
  • Why is a token needed? Access to premium features, rewards for actions, staking and governance (Tier‑1 whitepaper).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): no Tier‑1 quality metrics/benchmarks of the AI part; per Tier‑1, no specific contract addresses for “onchain records” beyond the token address were found; many properties require re‑checking at the code/contract level.

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 in Tier‑1 as an operating component of the ecosystem, not only as an “intention/roadmap”.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 applies when there is only intent without a description of functions; here the functions of the AI agent are already described in Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): Traicy is described as an AI agent that processes ESG/trading data and “powers” Trackgood.io and TrackFi.ai.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 whitepaper explicitly describes the role of the AI agent and its functions at the product level.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): There are the TrackFi and Trackgood web applications as a “surface” for interacting with the product.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://app.trackfi.ai/ , https://app.trackgood.io/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of working applications confirms the availability of the product for verification; the quality of the AI (metrics) is not separately confirmed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): No reproducible set of quality metrics/benchmarks of the AI part was found in the Tier‑1 source.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): A high‑level concept of the AI layer is described, but technical details/versions/architectural artifacts are not given.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_4 requires technical details/architecture/versions; in the whitepaper this is described at the concept level without verifiable artifacts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Base
  • Addresses/identifiers: token contract 0xdd32659B1e7a6A6B3C6e96Cd8a4c936bCfea0607
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://basescan.org/token/0xdd32659B1e7a6A6B3C6e96Cd8a4c936bCfea0607
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of the token and its contract in the explorer confirms the onchain component.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: the whitepaper claims that records/data (ESG claims/records) are stored onchain for traceability/anti‑greenwashing.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 source directly claims an onchain role for “records”; the addresses of the data contracts are not given.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: it is not established per Tier‑1 that the product “breaks down” without the blockchain (rather than simply losing some of its traceability properties).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): OC_3 requires an explicit threat model/justification of criticality; in Tier‑1 this is not proven.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, TRAI, on the Base network.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/ ; https://basescan.org/token/0xdd32659B1e7a6A6B3C6e96Cd8a4c936bCfea0607
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The Tier‑1 whitepaper + the onchain explorer confirm the existence of the token.
  • 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): TRAI is claimed as a token for access to premium tools (for example TrackFi PRO) and AI tools/reports.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The “Access” utility is described in Tier‑1 as a function of the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): TRAI is distributed as a reward for actions/contribution (Scan‑to‑Earn, Verify‑to‑Earn, missions).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/ ; https://www.trackgood.ai
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The “Rewards” utility and the reward mechanics are described in Tier‑1.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): The whitepaper claims governance for stakers/holders (voting rights).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The utility section directly includes governance (voting rights) as a function of 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 (for example with a subscription/stablecoins) is not established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): TK_4 requires explicit argumentation of replaceability; in Tier‑1 this is not disclosed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/ Official description of the Trackgood/TrackFi/Traicy ecosystem and the role of the AI agent.
Tier‑1 https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/ Token specs: TRAI (Base), total supply 1,000,000,000, allocation, decimals.
Tier‑1 https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/ Token utility: access (PRO), rewards, governance, staking/xTRAI.
Tier‑1 https://basescan.org/token/0xdd32659B1e7a6A6B3C6e96Cd8a4c936bCfea0607 Onchain fact: the TRAI token contract on the Base network.
Tier‑1 https://whitepaper.trackgood.ai/ The claim about “immutable data / each record stored on-chain” for traceability.
Tier‑1 https://app.trackfi.ai/ Available product surface: the TrackFi web application.
Tier‑1 https://app.trackgood.io/ Available product surface: the Trackgood web application.
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/trackgood-ai/ Context: token card/metadata (not proof of AI/onchain utility).

No comments to display

Back to top