Skip to main content

WhiteBridge AI Agents Network

WhiteBridge AI Agents Network (WBAI) — 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).

WhiteBridge — an AI/Agents / DePIN / Infra project on BNB Smart Chain: it describes a decentralized people‑data intelligence network where data providers (nodes) supply/serve requests, and AI agents turn “raw” signals/public records into structured reports (due diligence, OSINT, background checks, etc.). Token: WBAI (BEP‑20).

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 “data providers → AI agents → reports/insights” network for verifying and analyzing information about people from public sources.
  • Who it’s for: users (individuals/businesses) and developers who need people‑data search/verification; data providers (nodes).
  • Why onchain/token: the token is needed as the unit of payment for requests and as an incentive/collateral for data providers; the protocol describes onchain contracts for accounting and settlement.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: forms a request (for example, background check/OSINT/negative media) and pays/locks WBAI.
  2. The system does: AI agents request data from the distributed network of providers (nodes), structure and verify the responses.
  3. The user gets: a report/insights on a person or entity (per the claimed use cases).
  4. Where the blockchain is: onchain records the funding/authorization of requests and settlements with providers (Data Service Contracts, Service Keys, Data Shares, settlement).
  5. Token role (if any): WBAI is used to pay for requests, for provider staking and for governance (per the whitepaper/docs).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name WhiteBridge AI Agents Network
Also known as (aliases) WhiteBridge, Whitebridge Network, WBAI
Logo (logo) ../assets/247_whitebridge-network_logo.svg
Token symbol (ticker) WBAI
Category AI/Agents | DePIN | Infra
Primary chain (chain) BNB Smart Chain
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) Proof-of-Staked-Authority (described in the whitepaper)
Launch date (launch_date) 2025 (the token contract is published in the explorer)
Project status (status) active (per the website/docs)
Token (standard) BEP-20
Token contract 0x635d44f246156ed1080cb470877256c847673f19
Token model (token_type) utility (governance)
Max supply 1,000,000,000 WBAI (BscScan “Max Total Supply”)
Issuance fixed mint (the contract mints 1e9 at deployment) + a burn mechanism is described for fiat payments (whitepaper)
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Pay‑per‑use requests to AI agents; staking/locking of WBAI for data providers and access; governance mechanics are described as a planned DAO phase.
Governance company → planned DAO (roadmap Phase 3)
Admins/keys the token contract is Ownable (owner/transferOwnership/renounceOwnership in the code); the actual renounce/timelock status is not confirmed in the extracted fragment
Audit a CertiK audit is claimed (whitepaper), but no public report was found in the extracted sources
Bug bounty —
Team (team) UAB Whitebridge Network (Lithuania); the whitepaper lists the CEO/CTO/COO/CMO (names).
Funding (investors/funding) The whitepaper describes a plan for a public offering and admission to trading; the details of investment rounds are not confirmed in the extracted fragment.
AI component (ai_component) AI agents for people-data analysis
Use‑case (use_case) OSINT, background checks, due diligence
DecAI Fit — AI thesis fit 5/6 — high alignment with the Decentralized AI thesis
DecAI Fit component summary 2 / 2 / 3 / 3
Last verified 2026-02-11

General project overview

WhiteBridge describes itself as a “people‑data intelligence DePIN”: a network of distributed data providers (nodes) collects/serves requests across different categories of sources (public records, social signals, web data, etc.), and on top of this AI agents operate for various tasks (reputation, checks, OSINT, facial recognition, etc.).

The onchain part in the docs is framed as a settlement protocol between requests and providers: the user deposits WBAI (or other payment methods, if supported), receives request authorization keys, and providers confirm their contribution and receive proportional compensation at settlement.

Features/modules

  • AI Agents (demand side): agents for different use cases (background check, OSINT, facial recognition, due diligence, etc.) produce reports.
  • Node Network / Data Providers (supply side): a network of data providers (DePIN) that supply structured datasets and receive rewards.
  • WBAI Protocol: contracts/mechanics of Data Service Contracts, Service Keys, Data Shares, settlement.
  • WBAI Token Utility: pay‑per‑use requests, provider staking, access/subscriptions, developer API integrations.

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a company performs due diligence on a person → receives a structured report (per the docs’ claim) and pays for the request in WBAI.
  • Scenario 2: a user monitors reputation/negative mentions → an AI agent regularly checks sources and issues updates/alerts (roadmap/docs).
  • Scenario 3: a data provider connects as a node → stakes/locks WBAI, serves requests and receives rewards.

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet for BNB Smart Chain (for WBAI) and an account/access to the product on the website.
  • Network/chain: BNB Smart Chain (BEP‑20 WBAI).
  • Fees: BSC gas + WBAI fees/deductions as a service fee for requests (pay‑per‑use model).

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: smart contracts (the WBAI token + protocol contracts per the description), a web application, offchain data provider nodes, AI agents/models.
  • Participant roles: users/clients, AI agents, data providers (nodes), integration developers.
  • Where logic runs: onchain — deposits/accounting/distribution of compensations; offchain — data collection, execution of AI agents and report generation.
  • Dependencies: access to data sources (Web2/Web3), BSC RPC, application infrastructure.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: payment for AI agent requests (service fees), staking/locking for data providers, access/subscriptions and developer API integrations; governance functions.
  • Protocol necessity drivers: the settlement protocol is tied to depositing WBAI into Data Service Contracts; incentives for data providers are tied to WBAI rewards.
  • Who pays fees: platform users/clients (requests), API integration developers (usage fees), providers for onchain operations.
  • Where fees go: compensations to data providers in proportion to their contribution (Data Shares/settlement); the whitepaper also describes a repurchase+burn scenario for fiat payments.
  • Issuance/burn: max supply 1,000,000,000 WBAI; a burn mechanism is described in the whitepaper (for fiat payments, the company repurchases tokens from reserves and burns them).
  • Security/incentive mechanisms: staking by data providers; data quality/verification are claimed to affect rewards (AI verification/reputation).
  • Distribution and token issuance schedule: no numerical distribution tables were found in the extracted whitepaper fragment.
  • Treasury: not found in the extracted Tier‑1 sources.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: at the early stage — the company; the roadmap describes the activation of DAO governance (locked WBAI holders).
  • How protocol parameters change: via governance mechanics (the docs describe “community proposals”, fees/node criteria parameters).
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: — (not found in the extracted Tier‑1).
  • Keys/multisig: — (not found).

Security and incidents

  • Audits: a CertiK smart contract audit is claimed (whitepaper); no public report was found in the extracted sources.
  • Bug bounty: — (not found)
  • Incidents: — (not found)
  • Threat model: risks of data quality/legality, privacy, attacks on offchain providers, smart contract risks and economic attacks on incentives.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: the product/network are described as operational; roadmap Phase 2 is marked as in progress.
  • Key releases/milestones: the whitepaper is dated 2025‑10‑31; the roadmap includes Phase 1 (Completed) and further phases.
  • Roadmap: https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-roadmap

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: web application (app.whitebridge.network), developer API/integrations (ecosystem sections in the docs).
  • Partners: — (not found)
  • Where it’s actually used: the described AI agent use cases (reputation, OSINT, facial recognition, background check, etc.).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? AI agents are described as a layer that extracts/analyzes data from the provider network and turns it into reports for specific tasks.
  • What is truly onchain? the settlement protocol: deposits (proof of funding), request authorization (service keys), accounting of provider contributions (data shares) and settlement with token distribution.
  • Why is a token needed? payment for requests (pay‑per‑use), incentives/staking for nodes, as well as governance mechanics for holders of locked WBAI.
  • Red flags (based on the information found): AI‑washing — there are no public quality metrics for the reports; onchain‑washing — most of the data and inference remain offchain; token‑washing — many tokenomics parameters (distribution/vesting/treasury) are not confirmed in the extracted fragments.

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 medium 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): There are signs of AI reality per Tier‑1 (see AI_1..AI_4), so the AI_0 flag (intent‑only) does not apply.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — see Evidence/links in AI_1..AI_4.
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): AI_0=1 is admissible only when AI_1..AI_4=0; here ai_score without AI_0 = 2.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): AI agents take a user request, extract data from nodes and form a structured report/insights.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/how-it-works/ai-agents-the-demand-side , https://docs.whitebridge.network/how-it-works/the-supply-side-node-network-of-data-providers
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the docs describe the role of AI agents as an analysis and report generation layer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a public demo/sample report is not confirmed in the extracted Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/how-it-works/ai-agents-the-demand-side
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the text contains a description of the process, but no reproducible demo/reference output/screenshots in the extracted fragment.
  • 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.whitebridge.network/legal/whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the extracted sources contain no metrics for the accuracy/completeness/errors of AI reports.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): the architecture of the supply/demand sides (nodes ↔ AI agents) and the protocol settlement scheme are described.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/how-it-works/the-supply-side-node-network-of-data-providers , https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-protocol
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): there is a coherent technical description of the roles and protocol entities.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: BNB Smart Chain (BEP‑20)
  • Addresses/identifiers: WBAI 0x635d44f246156ed1080cb470877256c847673f19
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://bscscan.com/token/0x635d44f246156ed1080cb470877256c847673f19
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the token contract and parameters (max supply) are confirmed in the explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 1
  • What useful logic is onchain: Data Service Contracts (deposit/funding), Service Keys (authorization), Data Shares and settlement/reward distribution.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-protocol
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the protocol describes onchain mechanisms for settlement and contribution accounting.
  • Conflict note (if any): the description is conceptual; specific addresses of protocol contracts are not given in the extracted fragment.

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: theoretically, most of the logic (data collection/AI inference) can be implemented in a centralized way; onchain is needed primarily for transparency and settlement.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-protocol
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the protocol positions onchain as a trust/settlement layer, but “criticality” (impossibility of replacement) is not proven.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): the WBAI token exists.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://bscscan.com/token/0x635d44f246156ed1080cb470877256c847673f19
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the contract in the explorer confirms 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): WBAI is described as a pay‑per‑use token for AI‑agent queries/reports (service fees).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/legal/whitepaper , https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-token-utility
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper and token utility directly claim payment for requests in WBAI.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): data providers stake/lock WBAI and receive rewards for contribution/quality.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-token-utility , https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-protocol
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the utility section and the protocol describe staking/compensation and the link to data quality.
  • Conflict note (if any): penalties/slashing as a formal mechanism are not described in the extracted fragments.

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 1
  • Claim (one line): locked WBAI holders can propose/vote on protocol parameters (DAO phase).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-token-utility , https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-roadmap
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): governance is described as part of the utility and roadmap Phase 3.
  • Conflict note (if any): the voting mechanics/governance contracts are not given in the extracted fragment.

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): a substantial part of the utility (payment for requests) could also be implemented with alternative assets, so the strict “irreplaceability” of WBAI is not proven.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://docs.whitebridge.network/legal/whitepaper
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): the whitepaper positions WBAI as a utility but does not prove that the protocol technically cannot work with another asset.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://docs.whitebridge.network/legal/whitepaper Official whitepaper (2025‑10‑31): token utility, project description and consensus, mention of a CertiK audit, burn/repurchase model.
Tier‑1 https://docs.whitebridge.network/how-it-works/the-supply-side-node-network-of-data-providers Supply‑side: nodes/data providers, incentives, network structure (DePIN).
Tier‑1 https://docs.whitebridge.network/how-it-works/ai-agents-the-demand-side Demand‑side: AI agents and use cases (OSINT, background checks, facial recognition, etc.).
Tier‑1 https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-protocol Settlement protocol: Data Service Contracts, Service Keys, Data Shares, settlement.
Tier‑1 https://docs.whitebridge.network/ecosystem/wbai-token-utility WBAI utility: pay‑per‑use, staking nodes, developer API, governance.
Tier‑1 https://bscscan.com/token/0x635d44f246156ed1080cb470877256c847673f19 WBAI contract on BSC, max supply 1e9, BEP‑20 confirmation.
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/whitebridge-network/ Reference profile/market aggregation (not evidence for key claims).
Tier‑3 — —

No comments to display

Back to top