Skip to main content

Verasity

Verasity — 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).

Verasity — a blockchain‑oriented adtech/video project with the Proof of View (PoV) anti‑fraud technology; token: VRA (ERC‑777/ERC‑20‑compatible on Ethereum per Etherscan data).

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 set of products for video publishers/brands (ad stack, player, PoV) that promise to reduce ad fraud and transparently account for “real views”.
  • Who it’s for: video publishers, advertisers/brands, platforms with video content; on the retail side — viewers (Watch & Earn) and eSports participants.
  • Why onchain/token: PoV data/hashes are claimed to be recorded on the blockchain; the VRA token is used in the rewards/staking economy and as a unit of account in some of the products.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The publisher/platform does: integrates the Verasity SDK/player/ad stack (per the description in the whitepaper).
  2. The system does: verifies views, tries to filter out bots/fraud (in the whitepaper: “200 touch points and AI”), and records valid events as verifiable records/hashes.
  3. The advertiser/publisher receives: a promise of more honest statistics and reduced losses from fraud.
  4. Where the blockchain is: the whitepaper claims the use of Ethereum for “major transactions” and of an own sidechain, VeraChain, for storing PoV data/hashes.
  5. Token role: VRA is used in “Watch & Earn”, staking and as a “medium of exchange” for part of the platform economy (per the whitepaper).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Verasity
Also known as (aliases) VERA; Proof of View (PoV); VeraViews; VeraChain; VeraWallet; VeraEsports
Logo (logo) ../assets/159_verasity_logo.png
Token symbol (ticker) VRA
Category AI/Anti-Fraud | Infra | Media
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) active
Token (standard) ERC-777
Token contract 0xf411903cbc70a74d22900a5de66a2dda66507255
Token model (token_type) utility (governance)
Max supply 200,058,264,080.555985034222222549 VRA (Max Total Supply on Etherscan)
Issuance mintable (the contract has minter roles and finishMinting(); the “mint finished” status is not specified in this card)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) VRA as a “medium of exchange” in the video/gaming economy; Watch & Earn and staking are described in the whitepaper
Governance company (whitepaper: product governance is on the Token Generator side; the token “does not grant governance rights”)
Admins/keys the contract has roles (admin/minter/pauser/block); no timelock/multisig parameters were found in the reviewed sources
Audit — (the whitepaper mentions an audit of the minting function; no public Tier‑1 report found)
Bug bounty —
Team (team) the team is described in the whitepaper (“core leadership team” section; without a brief retelling)
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) AI view scoring + anti-fraud detection (PoV/VeraViews)
Use‑case (use_case) video ad anti-fraud; "verifiable views"
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 1 / 2 / 1 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

Verasity describes itself as a company/ecosystem in video advertising, eSports and video infrastructure, where the key technology is Proof of View (PoV) — verification of “genuine views” (anti‑fraud) with verifiable data recorded on the blockchain.

Note on networks: the passport lists Ethereum as the primary chain (per the token). The project’s materials also claim a VeraChain sidechain for PoV data/hashes.

In the whitepaper, the project separates a “protocol layer” (PoV, VeraChain) and a “product layer” (the VeraViews ad stack, VeraPlayer, VeraWallet, Watch & Earn, etc.). Regarding the blockchain, it is claimed that:

  • Ethereum is used for “major transactions”,
  • while PoV data/hashes are stored in the own sidechain VeraChain (so as not to pay dearly on Ethereum for a huge volume of events).

Features/modules

  • Proof of View (PoV): described in the whitepaper as a “protocol layer” + patents (the project’s claim).
  • VeraViews: an ad tech stack that uses PoV.
  • VeraChain (sidechain): claimed as the network for storing PoV data/hashes.
  • VeraWallet / Watch & Earn: a mechanism for rewarding viewers with the VRA token for watching content on publishers’ websites (via the SDK).
  • VeraEsports / tournaments: a product vertical around eSports.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a publisher integrates the SDK → obtains (as claimed) more honest view accounting/anti‑fraud and growth in ad revenue.
  • Scenario 2: a viewer watches content at a publisher → receives a reward in VRA (Watch & Earn; per the description in the whitepaper).
  • Scenario 3: a user uses VeraWallet to store/transact VRA and (per the description) can participate in staking.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: for the VRA token — an EVM wallet; for participation in the products — an account/integrations (depends on the role).
  • Network/chain: the VRA token — Ethereum mainnet; PoV data — VeraChain (network details/explorer are not provided in the reviewed sources).
  • Fees: Ethereum gas for onchain operations; product fees/model — depend on the specific module.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the VRA token contract on Ethereum; PoV/VeraViews/VeraPlayer as product components; the VeraChain sidechain (per the whitepaper).
  • Participant roles: publishers/brands (B2B), viewers (Watch & Earn), VRA holders/users (transactions/staking), the team (operation of the products).
  • Where logic runs: fraud verification/detection — in the product components; data recording — claimed as writing to VeraChain/partially Ethereum.
  • Dependencies: Ethereum infrastructure; Verasity’s own infrastructure for products/SDK.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: in the whitepaper, VRA is described as a “medium of exchange” in the video/gaming economy; it is used for rewards (Watch & Earn), and staking is described.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the token is needed for incentives (rewards to viewers/participants), as well as for part of the settlements/transactions via VeraWallet (per the whitepaper).
  • Who pays fees: ecosystem participants when transacting the token; B2B clients — via the product model (the details do not boil down to onchain).
  • Issuance/burn: the token contract on Etherscan contains minter roles and a function to finish minting; the Max Total Supply is shown on Etherscan. The whitepaper also has a separate concept of “PoV Foundation marker tokens” (not intended for trading) — it is important not to confuse them with VRA.
  • Incentive mechanisms: Watch & Earn rewards; staking (described in the whitepaper).
  • Distribution/vesting: the reviewed sources contain no convenient Tier‑1 “distribution table” (the whitepaper is voluminous; a separate tokenomics section requires separate proofreading).
  • Treasury: not singled out as a separate onchain module in the reviewed sources.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: the whitepaper directly states that the token does not grant governance rights; product decisions are made by the Token Generator/team.
  • Keys/roles: the token contract contains admin/minter/pauser/block roles (per the code on Etherscan). Nothing about multisig/timelock was found in the reviewed Tier‑1 sources.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: no public Tier‑1 report found; the whitepaper mentions that the minting function was verified by an audit (a link to the report itself is needed).
  • Security advisories: the smart contract repository contains an advisories section.
  • Bug bounty: not found in the reviewed sources.
  • Threat model (brief): a significant part of the work (fraud detection/accounting) happens in the product infrastructure; the onchain part is important, but does not cover all risks of manipulation “before the hashes are recorded”.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the project describes several active product verticals; the VRA token exists on Ethereum.
  • Roadmap: https://verasity.io/roadmap

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations (per the whitepaper): an SDK for popular video players/platforms; integrations with publishers.
  • Where it’s actually used: the token economy — via Ethereum/VeraWallet; PoV accounting — claimed as recorded in VeraChain/partially Ethereum.

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? The whitepaper directly states that VeraViews uses “AI” and “200 touch points” for bot/fraud detection and final view scoring in real time.
  • What is truly onchain? The VRA token (contract on Ethereum) and the claimed recording of PoV data/hashes on the blockchain (Ethereum + the VeraChain sidechain).
  • Why is a token needed? For incentives (Watch & Earn), staking and as a unit of account/medium of exchange in part of the platform economy (per the whitepaper).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing (there is an “AI” claim, but no detection quality/accuracy metrics in Tier‑1); onchain‑washing (a significant part of the logic is offchain, the blockchain records the result/hashes); token‑washing (the utility could be implemented via fiat/a stablecoin). Double‑check: public PoV metrics/benchmarks; the existence of an explorer/public proofs for VeraChain; smart contract audit(s) and their link to specific addresses.

DecAI Fit component summary

  • DecAI Fit: 3/6 — medium alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
Component Level Score
AI reality low 1
Onchain necessity medium 2
Token necessity low 1
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 an operating part of PoV scoring, not only as an intent in the roadmap.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0 is used only when there is an “intent without working signs”; here the application of AI in the current technology is described.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): AI is used for scoring/determining “bot or human” when content is viewed (anti‑fraud) and for final PoV scoring.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 clearly describes the function of AI in the product (fraud detection/scoring).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the reviewed Tier‑1 sources contain no reproducible demo showing AI detection/scoring in operation (input → decision/label → result).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper describes the system but provides no public demo/examples of decision traces.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_3 — metrics/quality (1/0)

  • AI_3 (decision): 0
  • Metrics: —
  • Context (version/date/how measured): —
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): no quantitative metrics of AI detection (for example, accuracy and the share of false positives/misses) were found in the whitepaper.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): there is no description of the model/architecture of the AI detector and its versions (which model, how it was trained, on what).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_4 requires technical details of the AI part; they are not disclosed in the document.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum mainnet
  • Addresses/identifiers: token contract 0xf411903cbc70a74d22900a5de66a2dda66507255
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xf411903cbc70a74d22900a5de66a2dda66507255
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a public onchain token contract with verified source code.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: recording/verifiability of PoV data (valid views and their hashes) on the blockchain; the VeraChain sidechain for storing PoV data (per the whitepaper).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 describes that PoV data is recorded/anchored onchain, rather than being limited to the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): VeraChain addresses/explorer are absent in the reviewed sources → part of the verifiability is limited.

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: anti‑fraud and view accounting can be implemented in a centralized way; the whitepaper has arguments about transparency/immutability, but no strict proof that without the blockchain the product loses its point.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is no formalized “replace the blockchain → a key property breaks down” at the level of verifiable artifacts.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the project has a token, VRA, on Ethereum.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xf411903cbc70a74d22900a5de66a2dda66507255
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token and the contract are verifiable 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): VRA is described as a “medium of exchange” for the video/gaming economy; tournaments/entry fees, etc. involve VRA payments/transactions.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 directly specifies the use of VRA as the settlement token in the ecosystem.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): Watch & Earn rewards viewers with the VRA token; staking is also described as an incentive to hold VRA.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): rewards/staking are direct incentives.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the whitepaper specifies that the token does not grant governance rights.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the absence of governance rights for token holders is explicitly stated.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): a significant part of the token’s utility (rewards/payment) could theoretically be implemented via fiat/a stablecoin/loyalty points without losing the point of the anti‑fraud.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Tier‑1 does not show a property that requires specifically the own token (rather than another means of settlement/incentives).
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://verasity.io/documents/verasity_whitepaper_eng.pdf description of PoV/VeraViews and the role of AI (“200 touch points and AI”); description of VeraChain (sidechain) and the role of VRA in the economy
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xf411903cbc70a74d22900a5de66a2dda66507255 the VRA token contract (address, Max Total Supply, verified source code/roles)
Tier‑1 https://github.com/verasitytech/SmartContracts/security/advisories the existence of security advisories for the smart contracts (a procedural sign)
Tier‑2 https://medium.com/verasity/verasitys-external-audit-aa44f31a86f mention of an external audit (needs to be matched with specific contracts/the report)
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/verasity reference profile of the token (not proof of technology)

No comments to display

Back to top