Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 122 references

AI-Based Crypto Tokens: The Illusion of Decentralized AI?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A review of leading AI-token projects concludes that most run their AI off-chain, so 'decentralized AI' is currently more aspiration than reality.

desk verdict A credible review of AI tokens whose central critique survives its weak sample, but whose 'most/many' generalizations overshoot the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07828 v2 pith:4C4Y26U5 submitted 2025-04-29 cs.DC cs.AIcs.CRcs.DB

Rischan Mafrur This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.AIcs.CRcs.DB
keywords AItokensdecentralizedblockchainoff-chaincomputationverificationdilemmatokenomicsspeculativezkML
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review asks whether AI-based crypto tokens deliver genuine decentralized AI or merely the appearance of it. It studies leading AI-token projects, including Render, Bittensor, Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, Ocean Protocol, and Numerai, and concludes that most rely on off-chain computation, so blockchains act mostly as payment and governance layers rather than as trustless AI execution environments. The paper argues that tokenized platforms currently struggle with scalability, verification, network effects, and accountability, and that many function closer to speculative instruments than to engines of innovation. It does not dismiss the field: it identifies on-chain verification, federated learning, modular chains, and better incentive design as the paths that could close the gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing analytical device is the distinction between on-chain coordination and off-chain computation, combined with the 'verification dilemma': the correctness of an AI output is hard to confirm without re-executing it, so delegated computation cannot be trusted at face value. The review applies this lens across a comparison table of token projects, classifying each by blockchain base, AI role, computation location, token utility, consensus, and business model, and then evaluates the same projects against centralized AI services across compute execution, hosting, access, monetization, governance, transparency, and verification. This framework carries the argument because every central limitation, including off-chain reliance, scalability constraints, quality-control gaps, and weak network effects, follows from where computation lives and whether its result can be checked.

What would settle it

A direct test would be an on-chain audit of the leading AI-token networks counting how many AI service calls are actually executed and verified on-chain rather than merely paid for on-chain. If, for example, Bittensor's subnets were shown to verify model outputs on-chain at meaningful scale, and if usage metrics for SingularityNET or Ocean Protocol approached centralized alternatives like Hugging Face or Kaggle, the 'illusion of decentralization' claim would lose its empirical footing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that current AI-token ecosystems have not yet delivered decentralized, trustless AI and in some cases risk functioning primarily as speculative financial instruments. The review substantiates this by tracing each major project's architecture: Render, Bittensor, Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, Ocean Protocol, Numerai, Cortex, and others place training and inference off-chain, reducing the blockchain to a payment, staking, and governance layer. Because on-chain verification of model outputs is still experimental, users must trust node operators, and the paper argues the resulting systems inherit many trust problems of centralized AI while adding crypto-economic overhead. The paper's constructive claim is that the gap is closable through zkML, trusted execution environments, proof-of-useful-work, blockchain-coordinated federated learning, and modular execution layers.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on treating the top market-cap tokens that self-identify as AI tokens as representative, and on the standard that heavy off-chain computation disqualifies a system from genuine decentralization; if token-coordinated off-chain compute counts as a legitimate form of decentralization, or the sample skews toward hyped projects, the critique is overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Investors and users should discount decentralization claims from AI-token projects that cannot show on-chain verification or distributed control of model execution.
  • Regulators examining utility-token classifications have grounds to ask whether tokens function as payment for services or as speculative assets, since the paper documents a systematic gap between token design and actual usage.
  • Builders should focus on services that centralized AI cannot provide, such as privacy-preserving computation, collective model ownership, and censorship-resistant access, because parity with centralized APIs is unlikely to win adoption.
  • The merging of Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, Ocean, and CUDOS into the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance is presented as a signal of maturing infrastructure, but the paper's analysis suggests consolidation alone does not solve off-chain computation and verification gaps.
  • On-chain verification technologies, including zkML, TEE attestations, and quorum-based AI oracles, are the concrete path the paper identifies for moving AI-token platforms from coordination layers to trustless service layers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An unstated corollary of the paper's own evidence: the speculative component of AI-token valuations could be quantified directly from on-chain data by comparing token transfer volume with the frequency of verifiable service calls on the same network; a large divergence would convert the review's qualitative critique into a measurable metric.
  • The paper's off-chain criterion implicitly defines decentralization as on-chain execution; a competing definition would treat token-coordinated off-chain compute as decentralization of coordination rather than of computation. Under that definition, some of the paper's sharpest criticisms would soften, and the testable question becomes whether governance and verification are distributed even when e
  • If the paper is right that verification is the bottleneck, then the first AI-token project to ship practical zero-knowledge proofs or TEE attestations for its models would create a categorical advantage over peers, making verifiability the likely competitive axis of the next cycle.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a critical survey of AI-based crypto tokens. It reviews leading projects (Render, Bittensor, Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, Ocean Protocol, and several smaller ones), classifying them by blockchain base, AI role, token utility, consensus mechanism, and business model. The paper argues that despite technical ambition, most current AI-token platforms fall short of genuinely decentralized, trustless AI: they rely heavily on off-chain computation, lack robust on-chain verification, face scalability and network-effect problems, and in some cases function primarily as speculative instruments. It then discusses future directions such as zkML, verifiable off-chain computation, specialized blockchains, federated learning, improved tokenomics, and hybrid governance, and closes with practical guidelines for launching decentralized AI tokens.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important question: whether AI-token projects deliver real decentralization or primarily a narrative. Its strengths are a clear research-question structure, a useful comparative framework (Tables 1–4), integration of the empirical literature on token speculation, and a constructive set of future directions and launch guidelines. The qualitative central claim is consistent with much of the cited external evidence and with the public behavior of the projects described. However, the paper is an interpretive review rather than an empirical study: it introduces no original dataset or measurement, and its strongest population-level conclusions rest on a convenience sample and on unsourced claims about platform usage. If the evidentiary gaps are addressed, the paper could be a valuable reference for investors, regulators, and builders evaluating decentralized AI claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, opening paragraph; Section 6] The sample is described as 'drawn from the top-ranked AI tokens by market capitalization ... limited to those that explicitly identify themselves as AI tokens,' but no sampling frame, population size, selection date, or inclusion/exclusion criteria beyond market-cap ranking are reported. Because Section 6 generalizes to 'most existing platforms' and 'many AI-token ecosystems,' the central conclusion is not supported by a non-representative convenience sample; either narrow the claims to the reviewed projects or add a principled sampling methodology and a defined population.
  2. [Table 4; Section 4.4] Several load-bearing usage claims are made without evidence. Table 4 states that OCEAN's 'marketplace sees limited real demand' and that AGIX 'platform usage is low, with many listed services seeing no traffic,' and Section 4.4 asserts that 'transaction volumes and usage metrics remain modest,' yet no on-chain measurements, traffic data, or external citations are provided for these specific assertions. Since these claims underpin the speculative-instrument conclusion, they should either be supported with data/sources or explicitly framed as qualitative author assessments rather than empirical findings.
  3. [Section 4.1; Section 2.2] The paper treats heavy reliance on off-chain computation as evidence of a 'decentralization illusion' without defining the threshold at which token-coordinated off-chain computation ceases to count as decentralized. This evaluative standard is load-bearing because it drives the central critique of most reviewed projects. The paper should define the evaluative dimensions of decentralization (e.g., governance, infrastructure provision, verifiability, exit rights) and state concretely how each reviewed project fails them.
  4. [Section 4.7] The argument that AI-token limitations are systemic draws on non-AI examples (Helium, Filecoin) and on ICO-era utility tokens. These examples are labeled as outside the AI domain, but they are nonetheless used to support the population-level conclusion about AI tokens. They should be presented strictly as analogies, with an explicit statement that they do not provide direct evidence about the representativeness of the AI-token sample itself.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 reports market capitalizations on a log scale but provides no exact values or source-level data beyond 'April 2025'; adding a small data table or source URLs would make the figure reproducible.
  2. [References [34] and [72]] References [34] and [72] are the same paper (Wang et al., on sandwich attacks in DeFi); one should be removed or cross-referenced.
  3. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'DeFi's built on blockchain infrastructures' contains a typographical error; it should read 'DeFi is built on blockchain infrastructures.'
  4. [Section 5.2] The sentence beginning 'Golem (GLM) iExec (RLC), which focuses on decentralized GPU computing, has migrated from Ethereum Layer 1 to Ethereum's Layer 2' is grammatically incomplete and conflates two distinct projects; it should be rewritten to describe Golem and iExec separately.
  5. [Section 4.6] The URL footnotes in Section 4.6 (the blockchainandthelaw.com post and the CFTC press release) should be converted into formal numbered references with access dates, consistent with the rest of the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an interpretive review with no derived predictions, no fitted parameters, and only a non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is a critical review and qualitative assessment of AI-token projects, not a derivation chain. It does not fit any parameter, compute any prediction from data, or claim that a quantity is derived from first principles. The central conclusion, that most AI-token ecosystems fall short of the promise of decentralized, trustless AI, is an interpretive synthesis of case studies, project documentation, and external empirical literature (e.g., token speculation studies [41-44]). The only self-citation, Mafrur [38], appears in passing in the background discussion of blockchain data analytics (Section 2.1) and in a citation list for Layer-2 solutions (Section 5.2); it does not supply the load-bearing evidence for any of the paper's claims. The sampling concern raised by the reader, namely that the selected projects are drawn from top-market-cap, self-identified AI tokens, is a generalizability and representativeness limitation, not a circularity: the paper's assessment is not equivalent to its selection criterion by construction. No equation is reused as a conclusion, no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, and no author-specific uniqueness theorem is invoked to force a choice. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are present. The review imports two evaluative premises: a particular definition of decentralization and the representativeness of a market-cap-selected sample. Both are stated or implied in the paper but not independently established.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Decentralization requires substantive on-chain computation and verifiability; token-based governance and node distribution alone are insufficient.
    The central critique in Section 4.1 treats heavy reliance on off-chain computation as a fundamental shortfall of AI-token platforms, an evaluative standard not proven within the paper.
  • domain assumption Top tokens by market capitalization that self-identify as AI tokens are representative of the AI-token category.
    Section 3 selects projects from CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko rankings. If the sample is biased toward hyped or speculative projects, the conclusions about the broader ecosystem weaken.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Based Crypto Tokens: The Illusion of Decentralized AI?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4C4Y26U5

@misc{pith2026250507828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Based Crypto Tokens: The Illusion of Decentralized AI?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4C4Y26U5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07828}
}
read the original abstract

The convergence of blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) has led to the emergence of AI-based tokens, which are cryptographic assets designed to power decentralized AI platforms and services. This paper provides a comprehensive review of leading AI-token projects, examining their technical architectures, token utilities, consensus mechanisms, and underlying business models. We explore how these tokens operate across various blockchain ecosystems and assess the extent to which they offer value beyond traditional centralized AI services. Based on this assessment, our analysis identifies several core limitations. From a technical perspective, many platforms depend extensively on off-chain computation, exhibit limited capabilities for on-chain intelligence, and encounter significant scalability challenges. From a business perspective, many models appear to replicate centralized AI service structures, simply adding token-based payment and governance layers without delivering truly novel value. In light of these challenges, we also examine emerging developments that may shape the next phase of decentralized AI systems. These include approaches for on-chain verification of AI outputs, blockchain-enabled federated learning, and more robust incentive frameworks. Collectively, while emerging innovations offer pathways to strengthen decentralized AI ecosystems, significant gaps remain between the promises and the realities of current AI-token implementations. Our findings contribute to a growing body of research at the intersection of AI and blockchain, highlighting the need for critical evaluation and more grounded approaches as the field continues to evolve.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kerši ´c, V ., Turkanovi´c, M.: ’A review on building blocks of decentralized artificial intelligence’, ICT Express, 2025 (Elsevier)

    2025

  2. [2]

    De Filippi, P., McCarthy, S.: ’Cloud computing: Centralization and data sovereignty’, Eur. J. Law Technol., 2012, 3, (2)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Zetzsche, D.A., Arner, D.W., Buckley, R.P.: ’Decentralized finance’, J. Financ. Regul., 2020, 6, (2), pp. 172–203

    2020

  4. [4]

    Render Network: ’About’, https://rendernetwork.com/about, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Goertzel, B., Giacomelli, S., Hanson, D., et al.: ’SingularityNET: A decentralized, open market and inter-network for AIs’, Thoughts, Theories Stud. Artif. Intell. Res., 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    505–539 XXX, pp

    McConaghy, T.: ’Ocean Protocol: Tools for the Web3 data econ- omy’, in Handbook on Blockchain (Springer, 2022), pp. 505–539 XXX, pp. 1–14 © 2025 11

    2022

  7. [7]

    Weeks, M.: ’The evolution and design of digital economies’, https://fetch.ai/uploads/Fetch.AI-Economics-white-paper.pdf, 2018, accessed 23 April 2025

    2018

  8. [8]

    Craib, R., Bradway, G., Dunn, X., et al.: ’Numeraire: A crypto- graphic token for coordinating machine intelligence and preventing overfitting’, Retrieved from https://numer.ai/whitepaper.pdf, 2017, accessed 23 April 2025

    2017

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Numerai: ’Leaderboard’, https://numer.ai/leaderboard, accessed 27 April 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Rao, Y ., Steeves, J., Shaabana, A., et al.: ’Bittensor: A peer-to- peer intelligence market’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03917, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ante, L., Demir, E.: ’The ChatGPT effect on AI-themed cryp- tocurrencies’, Economics & Business Letters, 2024, 13, (1)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Lett., 2023, 55, pp

    Saggu, A., Ante, L.: ’The influence of ChatGPT on artificial intelligence related crypto assets: Evidence from a synthetic control analysis’, Finance Res. Lett., 2023, 55, pp. 103993

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tagde, P., Tagde, S., Bhattacharya, T., et al.: ’Blockchain and artificial intelligence technology in e-Health’, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2021, 28, pp. 52810–52831

    2021

  6. [14]

    Food Sci

    Femimol, R., Joseph, L.N.: ’A comprehensive review of blockchain with artificial intelligence integration for enhancing food safety and quality control’, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol., 2025, pp. 104019

    2025

  7. [15]

    Charles, V ., Emrouznejad, A., Gherman, T.: ’A critical analysis of the integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence for supply chain’, Ann. Oper. Res., 2023, 327, (1), pp. 7–47

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hosen, M., Thaker, H.M.T., Subramaniam, V ., et al.: ’Artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and cryptocurrency in finance: Cur- rent scenario and future direction’, Proc. Int. Conf. Emerg. Technol. Intell. Syst., 2022, pp. 322–332

    2022

  9. [17]

    Yang, Q., Zhao, Y ., Huang, H., et al.: ’Fusing blockchain and AI with metaverse: A survey’,IEEE Open J. Comput. Soc., 2022, 3, pp. 122–136

    2022

  10. [18]

    10127–10149

    Salah, K., Rehman, M.H.U., Nizamuddin, N., Al-Fuqaha, A.: ’Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges’, IEEE Access, 2019, 7, pp. 10127–10149

    2019

  11. [19]

    Marwala, T., Xing, B.: ’Blockchain and artificial intelligence’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04451, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hussain, A.A., Al-Turjman, F.: ’Artificial intelligence and blockchain: A review’, Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol., 2021, 32, (9), e4268

    2021

  13. [21]

    Buterin, V ., et al.: ’Ethereum white paper’, GitHub repository, 2013, https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2013

  14. [22]

    Michael, J., Cohn, A., Butcher, J.R.: ’Blockchain technology’, The Journal, 2018, 1, (7), pp. 1–11

    2018

  15. [23]

    McCormick, K.: ’AI Technology’, From GI to Z: A Genera- tional Guide to Technology, 1985

    1985

  16. [24]

    Zhou, Z.-H.: Machine Learning (Springer Nature, 2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    LeCun, Y ., Bengio, Y ., Hinton, G.: ’Deep learning’, Nature, 2015, 521, (7553), pp. 436–444

    2015

  18. [26]

    Ferber, J., Weiss, G.: Multi-agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Addison-Wesley, 1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    rep., Uniswap, 2023

    Adams, H., Salem, M., Zinsmeister, N., et al.: ’Uniswap v4 core [draft]’, Tech. rep., Uniswap, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sushi: ’Ethereum Swap’, https://www.sushi.com/ethereum/swap, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Frangella, E., Herskind, L.: ’Aave v3 technical paper’, Tech- nical report, Aave, 2022, https://github.com/aave/aave-v3-core, accessed 23 April 2025

    2022

  22. [30]

    Leshner, R., Hayes, G.: ’Compound: The money market proto- col’, White Paper, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ellinger, E.W., Mini, T., Gregory, R.W., Dietz, A.: ’Decentral- ized autonomous organization (DAO): The case of MakerDAO’, J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Cases, 2024, 14, (2), pp. 265–272

    2024

  24. [32]

    Fiedler, I., Ante, L.: ’Stablecoins’, in The Emerald Handbook on Cryptoassets: Investment Opportunities and Challenges (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2023), pp. 93–105

    2023

  25. [33]

    Raun, C., Estermann, B., Zhou, L., et al.: ’Leveraging machine learning for bidding strategies in miner extractable value (MEV) auctions’, Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conf., 2022, pp

    Weintraub, B., Torres, C.F., Nita-Rotaru, C., et al.: ’A flash (bot) in the pan: Measuring maximal extractable value in private pools’, Proc. 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conf., 2022, pp. 458–471

    2022

  27. [36]

    Arkham Intelligence: ’Arkham: A Platform for Deanonymizing the Blockchain’, White Paper, July 2023, https://info.arkm.com/whitepaper, accessed 23 April 2025

    2023

  28. [37]

    Arkham Intelligence: ’AI Entity Predictions are now live on Arkham!’, https://info.arkm.com/announcements/ai-entity-predictions-are-now- live-on-arkham, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  29. [38]

    Mafrur, R.: ’Blockchain Data Analytics: Review and Chal- lenges’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09165, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Calzada, I.: ’The (Dis) Illusion of the Web3 Decentralization for Global Governance in the Age of GenAI’, Available at SSRN, 2025

    2025

  31. [40]

    Barbereau, T., Smethurst, R., Papageorgiou, O., Sedlmeir, J., Fridgen, G.: ’Decentralised finance’s timocratic governance: The distribution and exercise of tokenised voting rights’, Technology in Society, 2023, 73, 102251

    2023

  32. [41]

    Silberholz, J., Wu, D.A.: ’Measuring utility and speculation in blockchain tokens’, Available at SSRN, 2021

    2021

  33. [42]

    Zimmerman, P.: ’Blockchain structure and cryptocurrency prices’, Bank of England Working Paper, 2020

    2020

  34. [43]

    Mei, K., Sockin, M.: ’A theory of speculation in community assets’, Available at SSRN, 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Cubellis, B.: ’Filecoin (FIL): Dissecting storage market incen- tives’, Coinbase Institutional Research, https://www.coinbase.com/en-au/institutional/research-insights/research/ tokenomics-review/filecoin-fil-dissecting-storage-market-incentives, accessed 20 May 2025

    2025

  36. [45]

    Blythman, R.; Arshath, M.; Smékal, J.; Shaji, H.; Vivona, S.; Dunmore, T.: ‘Libraries, Integrations and Hubs for Decentralized AI using IPFS’, arXiv, 2022 (arXiv:2210.16651)

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Surveys Tuts., 2022, 24(1), IEEE (31–52)

    Daniel, E.; Tschorsch, F.: ‘IPFS and Friends: A Qualitative Comparison of Next Generation Peer-to-Peer Data Networks’,IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., 2022, 24(1), IEEE (31–52)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Patel, A., Green, S., Beylin, E.: ’The Graph as AI infrastruc- ture’, The Graph as AI Infrastructure

  39. [48]

    The Graph Team: ’The Graph as AI Infrastructure’, https://thegraph.com/blog/the-graph-ai-crypto/, accessed 27 April 2025

    2025

  40. [49]

    NEAR Foundation: ’NEAR Protocol: The Blockchain for AI’, https://near.org/, accessed 20 May 2025

    2025

  41. [50]

    Yakovenko, A.: ’Solana: A new architecture for a high perfor- mance blockchain v0.8.13’, White paper, 2018

    2018

  42. [51]

    Polkadot Developer Hub: ’Python Substrate Interface’, https://docs.polkadot.com/develop/toolkit/api-libraries/py-substrate- interface/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  43. [52]

    Kwon, J., Buchman, E.: ’Cosmos whitepaper’, A Netw. Distrib. Ledgers, 2019, 27, pp. 1–32

    2019

  44. [53]

    PhD thesis, University of Guelph, 2016

    Buchman, E.: ’Tendermint: Byzantine fault tolerance in the age of blockchains’. PhD thesis, University of Guelph, 2016

    2016

  45. [54]

    Hoskinson, C.: ’Cardano white paper’, https://www.cardano.org/en/whiteboard, 2017, accessed 23 April 2025

    2017

  46. [55]

    Goertzel, B.: ’Rejuve Bio: Bringing Neural-Symbolic AI and Cross-Organism Omics Data Together to Cure Aging’, White paper, Rejuve Bio, 2023, https://www.rejuve.bio/post/rejuve-bio-bringing- neural-symbolic-ai-and-cross-organism-omics-data-together-to-cure- aging, accessed 23 A...

    2023

  47. [56]

    NuNet: ’A Global Economy of Decentralized Computing’, https://www.nunet.io/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  48. [57]

    Artificial Superintelligence Alliance: ’Artificial Superintelli- gence Alliance’, https://superintelligence.io/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  49. [58]

    rep., Cortex Labs Pte

    Chen, Z., Wang, W., Yan, X., Tian, J.: ’Cortex – AI on blockchain’, Tech. rep., Cortex Labs Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 2018

    2018

  50. [59]

    learning contracts

    powers Alethea AI’s intelligent NFTs, combining generative AI with token-based governance to manage ethical content moder- ation. DeepBrain Chain (DBC) [60], one of the earliest attempts at decentralized AI compute, aimed to create a distributed GPU mar- ketplace but struggled...

    2025

  51. [60]

    DeepBrain Chain: ’Artificial Intelligence Computing Platform Driven by Blockchain’, White paper, 2023, https://www.deepbrainchain.org/assets/pdf/DeepBrainChainWhitepaper- en.pdf, accessed 23 April 2025

    2023

  52. [61]

    1–14 12 © 2025

    AI Protocol: ’AI Protocol V3 Whitepaper’, https://docs.aiprotocol.info/, accessed 23 April 2025 XXX, pp. 1–14 12 © 2025

    2025

  53. [62]

    Forecast

    Montes, G.A.; Goertzel, B.: ‘Distributed, decentralized, and democratized artificial intelligence’,Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2019, 141, Elsevier (354–358)

    2019

  54. [63]

    Story Foundation: ’Story: A Peer-to-Peer Intellectual Property Network’, White paper, 2025, https://www.story.foundation/whitepaper.pdf, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  55. [64]

    Kaggle: ’Your Machine Learning and Data Science Commu- nity’, https://www.kaggle.com/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  56. [65]

    Hugging Face: ’The AI community building the future’, https://huggingface.co/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  57. [66]

    Microsoft Azure: ’Artificial Intelligence on Azure’, https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/ai/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  58. [67]

    Amazon Web Services: ’Artificial Intelligence on AWS’, https://aws.amazon.com/ai/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  59. [68]

    Technol., 2021, 34, (4), pp

    V on Eschenbach, W.J.: ’Transparency and the black box prob- lem: Why we do not trust AI’, Philos. Technol., 2021, 34, (4), pp. 1607–1622

    2021

  60. [69]

    Google: ’Google AI – How we’re making AI helpful for everyone’, https://ai.google/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  61. [70]

    2021 ACM Conf

    Jacovi, A., Marasovi ´c, A., Miller, T., Goldberg, Y .: ’Formaliz- ing trust in artificial intelligence: Prerequisites, causes and goals of human trust in AI’, Proc. 2021 ACM Conf. on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency, 2021, pp. 624–635

    2021

  62. [71]

    Marshall, T.: ’Decentralised artificial intelligence’, CMS Law, https://cms.law/en/gbr/publication/decentralised-artificial- intelligence, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  63. [72]

    2022 CHI Conf

    Wang, Y ., Zuest, P., Yao, Y ., et al.: ’Impact and user perception of sandwich attacks in the DeFi ecosystem’, Proc. 2022 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022, pp. 1–15

    2022

  64. [73]

    Capponi, A., Jia, R., Yu, S.: ’Price discovery on decentralized exchanges’, Available at SSRN 4236993, 2024

    2024

  65. [74]

    Bitcoin Cash: Coexistence or downfall of Bitcoin Cash?’, Proc

    Kwon, Y ., Kim, H., Shin, J., Kim, Y .: ’Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: Coexistence or downfall of Bitcoin Cash?’, Proc. 2019 IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019, pp. 935–951

    2019

  66. [75]

    2021 CHI Conf

    V oskobojnikov, A., Wiese, O., Mehrabi Koushki, M., et al.: ’The U in crypto stands for usable: An empirical study of user experi- ence with mobile cryptocurrency wallets’, Proc. 2021 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021, pp. 1–14

    2021

  67. [76]

    Law Secur

    Clarke, R.: ’Regulatory alternatives for AI’, Comput. Law Secur. Rev., 2019, 35, (4), pp. 398–409

    2019

  68. [77]

    16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), 2017, pp

    Kiffer, L., Levin, D., Mislove, A.: ’Stick a fork in it: Analyzing the Ethereum network partition’, Proc. 16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), 2017, pp. 94–100

    2017

  69. [78]

    OpenAI: ’OpenAI – Advancing Digital Intelligence’, https://openai.com/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2025

  70. [79]

    Uzougbo, N.S., Ikegwu, C.G., Adewusi, A.O.: ’Regulatory frameworks for decentralized finance (DeFi): Challenges and oppor- tunities’, GSC Adv. Res. Rev., 2024, 19, (2), pp. 116–129

    2024

  71. [80]

    19th Eur

    Chen, B.-J., Waiwitlikhit, S., Stoica, I., Kang, D.: ’zkML: An optimizing system for ML inference in zero-knowledge proofs’, Proc. 19th Eur. Conf. on Computer Systems, 2024, pp. 560–574

    2024

  72. [81]

    Bartoletti, M., Benetollo, L., Bugliesi, M., et al.: ’Smart contract languages: A comparative analysis’, Future Gener. Comput. Syst. , 2025, 164, pp. 107563

    2025

  73. [82]

    Kerši ˇc, V ., Karakati ´c, S., Turkanovi ´c, M.: ’On-chain zero- knowledge machine learning: An overview and comparison’, Jour- nal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences , 2024, 102207

    2024

  74. [83]

    ACM SIGSAC Conf

    Abbaszadeh, K., Pappas, C., Katz, J., Papadopoulos, D.: ’Zero- knowledge proofs of training for deep neural networks’, Proc. ACM SIGSAC Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 4316–4330

    2024

  75. [84]

    Breidenbach, L., Cachin, C., Chan, B., et al.: ’Chainlink 2.0: Next steps in the evolution of decentralized oracle networks’, Chain- link Labs, 2021, 1, pp. 1–136

    2021

  76. [85]

    Xing, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Z., et al.: ’Zero-Knowledge Proof- Based Verifiable Decentralized Machine Learning in Communica- tion Network: A Comprehensive Survey’, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2025

    2025

  77. [86]

    2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/Ispa, 2015, 1, pp

    Sabt, M., Achemlal, M., Bouabdallah, A.: ’Trusted execution environment: What it is, and what it is not’, Proc. 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/Ispa, 2015, 1, pp. 57–64

    2015

  78. [87]

    Chainlink: ’The Intersection Between AI Models and Ora- cles’, Chainlink Blog, 4 July 2024, https://blog.chain.link/oracle- networks-ai/, accessed 23 April 2025

    2024

  79. [88]

    Lihu, A., Du, J., Barjaktarevic, I., et al.: ’A proof of useful work for artificial intelligence on the blockchain’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09244, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Ball, M., Rosen, A., Sabin, M., Vasudevan, P.N.: ’Proofs of useful work’, Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2017

    2017

  81. [90]

    Huang, C., Song, R., Gao, S., et al.: ’Data availability and decen- tralization: New techniques for zk-rollups in Layer 2 blockchain networks’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10828, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Baldominos, A., Saez, Y .: ’Coin.AI: A proof-of-useful-work scheme for blockchain-based distributed deep learning’, Entropy, 2019, 21, (8), 723

    2019

  83. [92]

    Commun., 2024

    Tortola, D., Lisi, A., Mori, P., Ricci, L.: ’Tethering Layer 2 solu- tions to the blockchain: A survey on proving schemes’, Comput. Commun., 2024

    2024

  84. [93]

    2024 IEEE 2nd Int

    Song, H., Qu, Z., Wei, Y .: ’Advancing blockchain scalability: An introduction to layer 1 and layer 2 solutions’, Proc. 2024 IEEE 2nd Int. Conf. on Sensors, Electronics and Computer Engineering (ICSECE), 2024, pp. 71–76

    2024

  85. [94]

    19th ACM Asia Conf

    Cong, M., Yuen, T.H., Yiu, S.-M.: ’zkmatrix: Batched short proof for committed matrix multiplication’, Proc. 19th ACM Asia Conf. on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 289– 305

    2024

  86. [95]

    Sguanci, C., Spatafora, R., Vergani, A.M.: ’Layer 2 blockchain scaling: A survey’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10881, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  87. [96]

    iExec: ’Decentralized cloud computing platform’, https://www.iex.ec/, accessed 28 April 2025

    2025

  88. [97]

    Zawistowski, J., Janiuk, P., Regulski, A.: ’The Golem project – crowdfunding whitepaper’, Golem, 2016, 28

    2016

  89. [98]

    219744–219756

    Toyoda, K., Zhao, J., Zhang, A.N.S., Mathiopoulos, P.T.: ’Blockchain-enabled federated learning with mechanism design’, IEEE Access, 2020, 8, pp. 219744–219756

    2020

  90. [99]

    Surv., 2022, 55, (4), pp

    Qu, Y ., Uddin, M.P., Gan, C., et al.: ’Blockchain-enabled fed- erated learning: A survey’, ACM Comput. Surv., 2022, 55, (4), pp. 1–35

    2022

  91. [100]

    Ren, S.; Kim, E.; Lee, C.: ‘A scalable blockchain-enabled fed- erated learning architecture for edge computing’, PLOS ONE, 2024, 19(8), Public Library of Science (e0308991)

    2024

  92. [101]

    red-team DAOs

    introduce Biscotti, a P2P federated learning system where blockchain and homomorphic encryption coordinate multi-party stochastic gradient descent (SGD). This fully decentralized approach enforces honest aggregation, though it comes with additional con- sensus overhead. [102] ...

    2025

  93. [102]

    5171–5183

    Qu, Y ., Gao, L., Luan, T.H., et al.: ’Decentralized privacy using blockchain-enabled federated learning in fog computing’, IEEE Internet Things J., 2020, 7, (6), pp. 5171–5183

    2020

  94. [103]

    Parallel Distrib

    Shayan, M.; Fung, C.; Yoon, C.J.M.; Beschastnikh, I.: ‘Bis- cotti: A Blockchain System for Private and Secure Federated Learning’, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. , 2021, 32(7), IEEE (1513–1525)

    2021

  95. [104]

    Mothukuri, V .; Parizi, R.M.; Pouriyeh, S.; Dehghantanha, A.; Choo, K.-K.R.: ‘FabricFL: Blockchain-in-the-Loop Federated Learning for Trusted Decentralized Systems’, IEEE Systems Jour- nal, 2021, 16(3), IEEE (3711–3722)

    2021

  96. [105]

    Dependable Secure Comput., 2019, 16(5), IEEE

    Weng, J.; Zhang, Y .; Li, M.; Zhang, J.; Luo, W.; Weng, J.: ‘DeepChain: Auditable and Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning with Blockchain-Based Incentive’, IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput., 2019, 16(5), IEEE

    2019

  97. [106]

    Potts, J., MacDonald, T.: ’New data city: The future of the dig- ital CBD as a data pool on a DAO’, Available at SSRN 3892009, 2021

    2021

  98. [107]

    Thomas, A.J.: ’DAOs, cooperatives and the educational prin- ciple’, Law Ethics Technol., 2024, 1, pp. 1–30

    2024

  99. [108]

    Petreski, D., Cheong, M.: ’Data cooperatives: A conceptual review’, 2024

    2024

  100. [109]

    6260 XXX, pp

    Zichichi, M., Ferretti, S., Rodríguez-Doncel, V .: ’Decentral- ized personal data marketplaces: How participation in a DAO can support the production of citizen-generated data’,Sensors, 2022, 22, (16), pp. 6260 XXX, pp. 1–14 © 2025 13

    2022

  101. [110]

    Jaiman, V .; Pernice, L.; Urovi, V .: ‘User incentives for blockchain-based data sharing platforms’, PLOS ONE, 2022, 17(4), Public Library of Science (e0266624) (

    2022

  102. [111]

    Nguyen, L.D., Pandey, S.R., Soret, B., et al.: ’A marketplace for trading AI models based on blockchain and incentives for IoT data’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02870, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Zhang, Z., Rao, Y ., Xiao, H., et al.: ’Proof of quality: A costless paradigm for trustless generative AI model inference on blockchains’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17934, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  104. [113]

    , 2020, 8, (4), pp

    Ayaz, F., Sheng, Z., Tian, D., Guan, Y .L.: ’A proof-of-quality- factor (PoQF)-based blockchain and edge computing for vehicular message dissemination’, IEEE Internet Things J. , 2020, 8, (4), pp. 2468–2482

    2020

  105. [114]

    Ocean Protocol Team: ’Ocean Token Model’, https://blog.oceanprotocol.com/ocean-token-model-3e4e7af210f9, accessed 27 April 2025

    2025

  106. [115]

    Shafay, J.; Nadir, A.; Yuan, Y .; Hassan, A.U.; Shah, Y .; Anwar, M.W.; Koubaa, A.: ‘Blockchain for deep learning: review and open challenges’, Cluster Comput., 2023, 26, Springer (197–221)

    2023

  107. [116]

    Multimedia Inf

    Das, P.; Singh, M.; Verma, K.K.: ‘Blockchain-Enabled Deep Learning Approach to Improve Healthcare System’, J. Multimedia Inf. Syst., 2024, 11(1), Korea Multimedia Soc. (9–16)

    2024

  108. [117]

    Kumar, A.; Finley, B.; Braud, T.; Tarkoma, S.; Hui, P.: ‘Sketch- ing an AI Marketplace: Technological, Economic, and Regulatory Aspects’, IEEE Access, 2021, 9, IEEE

    2021

  109. [118]

    AAAI/ACM Conf

    Feffer, M., Sinha, A., Deng, W.H., et al.: ’Red-teaming for generative AI: Silver bullet or security theater?’, Proc. AAAI/ACM Conf. on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2024, 7, pp. 421–437

    2024

  110. [119]

    Friedler, S., Singh, R., Blili-Hamelin, B., et al.: ’AI red- teaming is not a one-stop solution to AI harms’, 2023

    2023

  111. [120]

    AAAI/ACM Conf

    Cihon, P., Maas, M.M., Kemp, L.: ’Should artificial intel- ligence governance be centralised? Design lessons from history’, Proc. AAAI/ACM Conf. on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2020, pp. 228–234

    2020

  112. [121]

    Rikken, O.K., Janssen, M.F.W.H.A., Roosenboom-Kwee, Z.: ’The ins and outs of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs): Unraveling the definitions, characteristics, and emerging developments of DAOs’, Blockchain: Research and Applications , 2023, 4, (3), 100143

    2023

  113. [122]

    Hoffman, M.R., Ibáñez, L.-D., Simperl, E.: ’Toward a formal scholarly understanding of blockchain-mediated decentralization: A systematic review and a framework’, Frontiers in Blockchain, 2020, 3, 35

    2020

  114. [123]

    1–14 14 © 2025

    Catalini, C., Gans, J.S.: ’Initial coin offerings and the value of crypto tokens’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 2018 XXX, pp. 1–14 14 © 2025

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.