Skip to main content

Zapicorn

Zapicorn — 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).

Zapicorn — a Meme project on Ethereum, token (symbol: ZAPI).

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: the ERC‑20 token ZAPI on the Ethereum network (positioned as a memecoin project).
  • Who it’s for: token participants/holders; specific product scenarios are not established per Tier‑1.
  • Why onchain/token: the token contract is confirmed onchain; the token utility (payment/incentives/governance) is not established per Tier‑1.

How it works (very briefly)

  1. The user does: transfers the ZAPI token and interacts with Ethereum infrastructure (wallet, DEX).
  2. The system does: executes ERC‑20 transactions on the Ethereum network.
  3. The user gets: an onchain token transfer and a balance change.
  4. Where the blockchain is: Ethereum (the token contract and transactions are visible in the explorer).
  5. Token role: not established per Tier‑1 (other than the fact of the token’s existence).

Quick links: AI thesis fit

Project passport

Field Value
Project name Zapicorn
Also known as (aliases) ZAPI
Logo (logo) ../assets/812_zapicorn_logo.webp
Token symbol (ticker) ZAPI
Category Meme
Primary chain (chain) Ethereum
Type EVM
Network status mainnet
Consensus (consensus) PoS (Ethereum)
Launch date (launch_date) —
Project status (status) —
Token (standard) ERC-20
Token contract 0xc434268603ca8854e0be1a3ff15cad73bd6ec49a
Token model (token_type) —
Max supply —
Issuance —
Tokenomics (tokenomics, brief) Per Tier‑1 (website), the following are claimed: burned initial liquidity, renounced contract, “no emissions” (without confirmation of supply/issuance parameters by onchain data in this card).
Governance —
Admins/keys —
Audit —
Bug bounty —
Team (team) —
Funding (investors/funding) —
AI component (ai_component) —
Use‑case (use_case) ERC-20 memecoin token
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

Zapicorn is a project with the ERC‑20 token ZAPI on the Ethereum network. In the available Tier‑1 sources (official website), the project is described as a memecoin initiative; however, no verifiable Tier‑1 description of a separate product/protocol or features that would require the blockchain beyond the existence of the token was found.

Within DecAIHub, this card records verifiable facts: the existence of the token contract, basic links and the boundaries of established information (what exactly is proven by Tier‑1 and what is not established).

Features/modules

  • ERC‑20 token: the ZAPI contract on the Ethereum network (onchain).
  • Community channels: X/Discord/Telegram (navigation links in links_*).

Typical scenarios

  • Scenario 1: a user transfers ZAPI between addresses → the transaction and balance are checked in the explorer.
  • Scenario 2: a user interacts with liquidity/trading on a DEX → onchain operations are reflected on Ethereum (details of the mechanics are not established per Tier‑1).

Getting started (wallet/network)

  • What you need: an EVM wallet and ETH for fees.
  • Network/chain: Ethereum mainnet.
  • Fees: Ethereum network fees for transactions.

Architecture/tech (non‑AI)

  • Components: the ERC‑20 token contract, Ethereum infrastructure (RPC/validators), user wallets.
  • Participant roles: token holders, DEX users, Ethereum infrastructure providers.
  • Where logic runs: onchain — ERC‑20 transfers/events; other logic/services (if they exist) are not established per Tier‑1.
  • Dependencies: Ethereum L1.

Token/economics (expanded, no forecasts)

  • Token utility: not established per Tier‑1.
  • Who pays fees: users (gas in ETH) for transactions.
  • Where fees go: to Ethereum network validators/stakers (within the network mechanics).
  • Issuance/burn: supply/issuance parameters are not established per Tier‑1; the official website has claims about burned initial liquidity, renounced contract, “no emissions” and the burning of some tokens.

Governance

  • Who makes decisions: not established per Tier‑1.
  • How protocol parameters change: not established.
  • Where decisions are discussed/made: —.
  • Keys/multisig: —.

Security and incidents

  • Audits: —.
  • Bug bounty: —.
  • Incidents: —.
  • Threat model: standard risks of ERC‑20 tokens on the Ethereum network (contract bugs, liquidity/infrastructure risks); without a public Tier‑1 audit, conclusions are limited.

Project status and timeline

  • Current status: onchain token on Ethereum mainnet.
  • Key releases/milestones: —.
  • Roadmap: —.

Ecosystem/integrations

  • Integrations: Ethereum wallets/DEX infrastructure (specific integrations are not established per Tier‑1).
  • Partners: —.
  • Where it’s actually used: onchain activity of the token contract is observable via Etherscan (see links_*).

AI component of the project

  • What is real AI here? Per Tier‑1 sources, an AI component of the product/protocol is not identified (AI appears in the description as part of the narrative, but not as verifiable functionality).
  • What is truly onchain? the ERC‑20 token contract of ZAPI on the Ethereum network.
  • Why is a token needed? Not established per Tier‑1 (other than the fact of the token’s existence).
  • Red flags (based on the information found): absence of a verifiable Tier‑1 description of the product/protocol and the role of the token; absence of public audits/bug bounty.

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 low 0
Evidence Tier‑1 present 1
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 was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Mentions of AI in the available sources are not formulated as a product roadmap/intent.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_1 — what the AI does (1/0)

  • AI_1 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 description of AI features/tasks was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): An AI component of the product/protocol is not confirmed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

AI_2 — demos/examples (1/0)

  • AI_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No Tier‑1 demo/app was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no verifiable demo of AI features.
  • 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): Metrics/benchmarks were not found.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • AI_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): No tech description of an AI component was found.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without Tier‑1 technical docs/architecture, AI flags remain 0.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Onchain necessity

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

  • OC_1 (decision): 1
  • Chain: Ethereum
  • Addresses/identifiers: 0xc434268603ca8854e0be1a3ff15cad73bd6ec49a (ERC‑20 token contract)
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xc434268603cA8854e0Be1a3fF15CaD73BD6eC49A
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The token contract and its onchain activity are observable in the explorer.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • OC_2 (decision): 0
  • What useful logic is onchain: Not established per Tier‑1 (within this card, only the fact of the ERC‑20 token’s existence is confirmed).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xc434268603cA8854e0Be1a3fF15CaD73BD6eC49A
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no confirmation of separate onchain logic other than the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

OC_3 — onchain is critical (1/0)

  • OC_3 (decision): 0
  • “Replace the blockchain” test: not established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 proof that the product requires the trustless properties of the blockchain beyond the existence of the token.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Token necessity

TK_0 — no token (1/0)

  • TK_0 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The project has a token, ZAPI (ERC‑20).
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — https://etherscan.io/token/0xc434268603cA8854e0Be1a3fF15CaD73BD6eC49A
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): The existence of the token is confirmed onchain.
  • 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): Utility as “payment for the service” is not established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 description of a service where ZAPI is mandatory payment.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

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

  • TK_2 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): Mechanisms of incentives/collateral/penalties are not established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no verifiable description of onchain incentives.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_3 — governance (1/0)

  • TK_3 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The use of the token for governance is not established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): There is no Tier‑1 description of a governance process with a role for ZAPI.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

TK_4 — token is replaceable (1/0)

  • TK_4 (decision): 0
  • Claim (one line): The replaceability of the token is not established per Tier‑1.
  • Evidence: Tier‑1 — —
  • Why sufficient / why not (one line): Without a Tier‑1 description of utility, replaceability cannot be correctly assessed.
  • Conflict note (if any): —

Evidence (table)

Tier Source What it proves
Tier‑1 https://zapicorn.ai/ Official website: basic project description; statements about tokenomics (burn initial liquidity, renounced contract) are present as claims by the team/website.
Tier‑1 https://www.zapicorn.ai/tokenomics/ Tokenomics details as claims by the team/website (for example: “no emissions”, burned liquidity, renounced contract).
Tier‑1 https://etherscan.io/token/0xc434268603cA8854e0Be1a3fF15CaD73BD6eC49A The ERC‑20 token contract of ZAPI and onchain facts (address, chain, transactions).
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “AI component of the product/protocol” was found.
Tier‑1 — No Tier‑1 source for claim “token utility (payment/incentives/governance) in the product” was found.
Tier‑2 https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zapicorn/ Token profile (for reference).
Tier‑2 https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/zapicorn Token profile (for reference).

No comments to display

Back to top