Skip to main content

Trias

Trias Token — 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).

Trias — an Infra project related to network roles and mechanisms in Leviatom/Prometh/MagCarta (per the whitepaper), token (symbol: TRIAS).

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 project with a set of components (Leviatom/Prometh/MagCarta) that describes node roles and economic incentives for “verification/routing/execution”.
  • Who it’s for: node operators/validators/network participants and application developers (as described in the whitepaper).
  • Why onchain/token: in the Tier‑1 whitepaper, the token is used for node incentives and payments/rewards (“verification as mining”, “routing as mining”, “execution as gas”); the TRIAS ERC‑20 token on Ethereum is confirmed separately.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: participates as a node (verifier/router/executer) or runs applications/tasks (Prometh/MagCarta) according to the described model.
  2. The system does: verifiers perform checks (TEE‑oriented), routers spread the check data and build a web‑of‑trust, executers run applications according to the MagCarta schedule/consensus.
  3. The user gets: rewards in tokens for contribution (checks/routing/execution) and/or the execution of tasks.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the coordination/distribution/consensus logic is described at the whitepaper level; the verifiable onchain fact in this card is the TRIAS ERC‑20 contract on Ethereum.
  5. Token role: incentives and a “gas‑like” economy for network roles (per the whitepaper).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Trias
Also known as (aliases) Trias, TriasLab, TRIAS
Logo (logo) ../assets/195_trias-token_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) TRIAS
Category Infra
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 0x3A856d4effa670C54585a5D523e96513e148e95d
Token model (token_type) utility (payments + staking + rewards)
Max supply 10,000,000 TRIAS (Max Total Supply, Etherscan)
Issuance fixed (per max supply; issuance/unlock details — see token metrics in the docs)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) the verifiers/routers/executers roles receive rewards for “verification/routing/execution” (per the whitepaper)
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) network incentives (verification/routing/execution)
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 0/6 — no AI reality and no AI intent (ai_score=0)
DecAI Fit component summary 0 / 1 / 2 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

The Trias Whitepaper describes a set of components (Leviatom/Prometh/MagCarta) and an economic model in which network participants can take on roles:

  • Verifiers: perform repeated checks of the “trustworthiness” of surrounding nodes (TEE‑oriented checks) and discovery; the model is called “verification as mining”.
  • Routers: collect check data, spread it via gossip and build a web‑of‑trust; the model is called “routing as mining”.
  • Executers: run Prometh applications scheduled by the MagCarta contract; the model is called “execution as gas” and “verification as gas”.

The same part of the whitepaper additionally describes the idea of an insurance model (insurance contracts) that can reward programs/participants who find vulnerabilities and compensate nodes for losses from running vulnerable programs.

Features/modules

  • Node roles: verifiers/routers/executers and the incentives for them.
  • Prometh + MagCarta: the model for executing applications and distributing rewards (described in the whitepaper).
  • Incentive/insurance mechanisms: as an extension of the economic model (whitepaper).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a node operator participates as a verifier/router → performs checks/routing → receives periodic rewards in tokens.
  • Scenario 2: an executer runs a Prometh application → receives a reward → distributes a share to contributors (verifiers/routers) (as described).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet for interacting with the ERC‑20 TRIAS; for network roles — node infrastructure (for details see the Tier‑1 docs; not broken down in this card).
  • Network/chain: Ethereum (ERC‑20 TRIAS); Trias also has its own infrastructure/docs, but this card records no Tier‑1 addresses of protocol contracts (other than the token) for verification.
  • Fees: Ethereum gas for token operations.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the Leviatom network roles (verifiers/routers/executers), Prometh applications, the MagCarta contract as the coordination layer (described conceptually).
  • Where logic runs: checks/routing/execution — computations on nodes; coordination/distribution — claimed via MagCarta contracts/consensus (whitepaper).
  • Dependencies: TEE‑oriented checks (mentioned as part of the verifiers model).

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: incentives for the verifiers/routers/executers roles (“as mining / as gas”) and, potentially, insurance mechanics (per the whitepaper).
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the whitepaper directly ties the “mining/gas” rewards and distribution to the role of the token.
  • Issuance/distribution: the whitepaper states that the details will be published in a separate Token Economics White Paper; this card records only the onchain max supply parameter from Etherscan.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: — (not confirmed by the Tier‑1 sources in this card).

Security and incidents

  • Security advisories: there are GitHub Security Advisories in the official documentation repository.
  • Audits/bug bounty: no public Tier‑1 links were found in this card.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the project is active (there are public docs and repositories, a token on Ethereum).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? Per Tier‑1 sources, the available whitepaper describes trust/verification mechanisms and incentives; an AI model/inference as a product component is not recorded.
  • What is truly onchain? The verifiable fact is the TRIAS ERC‑20 token on Ethereum; the rest of the network’s onchain logic is described at the concept level without contract addresses in this card.
  • Why is a token needed? The economy of network roles (rewarding verification/routing/execution) per the whitepaper.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): the project is positioned as “intelligent systems”, but no Tier‑1 description of an AI component (model/metrics/demo) was found within this card; some of the protocol claims lack addresses/artifacts for independent verification.

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 low 1
Token necessity high 2
Evidence Tier‑1 partially present 3
Details

AI reality

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

  • AI_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no Tier‑1 declaration of AI intent as a separate direction was found within this card.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the available text describes the network/security/incentives, but not a roadmap for an AI module.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): AI functionality is not described as a product module.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper focuses on node roles and the economy, not on an AI model/inference.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): no Tier‑1 demo of an AI component was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no reproducible example of AI at work.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI quality metrics are absent.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): there is a technical description, but not about an AI model/versions.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the description concerns roles/incentives/TEE checks, not an AI architecture.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: TRIAS ERC‑20 0x3A856d4effa670C54585a5D523e96513e148e95d
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x3A856d4effa670C54585a5D523e96513e148e95d
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the onchain token page confirms the address and parameters.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: this card records no addresses of protocol contracts (other than the token) for verification.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper/token-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the role of MagCarta is described conceptually, but without reference to verifiable onchain artifacts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: no strict proof of onchain criticality in operational form was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper/token-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper describes the benefits of onchain coordination, but gives no “breaks down without the blockchain” criterion.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, TRIAS (ERC‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0x3A856d4effa670C54585a5D523e96513e148e95d
  • 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): rewards/payments are described as “execution as gas / verification as gas” (the economy of execution and checks).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper/token-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper describes the token as the economic instrument for payment/distribution for execution.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): “verification as mining” and “routing as mining” are described as reward mechanisms for contribution.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper/token-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): it is directly stated that the contribution of computation/checks/routing is rewarded with tokens.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the use of TRIAS for governance is not confirmed in the Tier‑1 sources of this card.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): in the available text, the governance mechanics are not described as a verifiable process.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the token is described as a core element of the network’s economic incentives.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper/token-economy
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): “as mining / as gas” describes the native role of the token in the incentive mechanics.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://docs.trias.one/trias-whitepaper/token-economy the verifiers/routers/executers roles and the economic mechanics “verification/routing as mining”, “execution as gas”
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0x3A856d4effa670C54585a5D523e96513e148e95d the onchain parameters of the TRIAS token (address, decimals, max supply)
Tier‑1 https://github.com/trias-lab/Documentation/security/advisories the existence of Security Advisories in the official repository
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/trias-token reference profile

No comments to display

Back to top