How We Check Project Claims
The integrity layer explained: how we test what DeAI projects claim against independent on-chain data, what each verdict means, and why every finding is a dated snapshot rather than a live feed.
Every decentralised AIDeAIDecentralised AI. An umbrella term for blockchain-based projects that build AI infrastructure (compute, data, inference, models, agents) without a single central provider controlling the system.Like the difference between streaming a movie from Netflix and sharing it via BitTorrent. Netflix is fast and polished but one company controls what you can watch and what you pay. BitTorrent is messier but no single operator can shut you out.Read more → project markets numbers. User counts, revenue, GPUs online, tokens processed, agents launched. Almost none of it gets independently checked. The integrity layer is our attempt to test the claims that matter against the blockchain itself, and to say plainly what holds up and what doesn’t.
What we check
We record three things for a project, and keep them separate on purpose:
- Claims vs reality. A figure the project reports, checked against an independent source. We show the claim, where it came from, what we checked it against, and the verdict.
- Measured on-chain facts. Values read straight from the chain: stake concentration, owner holdings, validator counts. These are facts read from the chain, and they aren’t open to dispute.
- Token rewards. Whether rewards are funded by revenue or by printing new tokensTokenA digital unit of value or access rights tracked on a blockchain. Tokens can represent ownership in a project, a right to use a service, a share of future revenue, or simply a tradable asset with no underlying claim.Like a physical poker chip a casino issues. The chip itself has no value. What makes it worth something is what it lets you do at the casino, what the casino has promised, and how much other people will pay you for it.Read more →.
The verdicts
Each checked claim gets one of five plain verdicts:
| Verdict | Plain meaning |
|---|---|
| Verified | We checked the claim against independent data and it holds up. |
| Overstated | The reported figure is higher than independent data shows. Treat the headline with caution. |
| Understated | The reported figure is lower than independent data shows. |
| Now stale | Accurate when reported, but on-chain reality has since moved. Don’t cite the old figure as current. |
| Unconfirmed | We checked but couldn’t independently confirm it. That leaves it unverified, and we say so. |
Overstated carries no accusation of fraud. A marketing number and a measured number can diverge for honest reasons: a different counting window, a registered-versus-active distinction, a snapshot that has aged. We record the gap and both sources, and leave the judgement to you.
How deeply we checked
Projects aren’t all checked to the same depth. The badge tells you which:
| Depth | What it means |
|---|---|
| Not assessed | We haven’t run an independent check yet. Read it as a gap in our coverage. It doesn’t mean the project passed. |
| Editorial | Reviewed and figures flagged, but not rebuilt from chain data. |
| Cross-checked | Checked against an independent third party, such as DeFiLlama or Messari. |
| On-chain reconciled | We rebuilt the figures from on-chain data ourselves. The deepest check we do. |
“Not assessed” is the badge to read most carefully. A blank means we haven’t looked yet, and we’d rather show that than imply coverage we don’t have.
What “independent” means
A check is only as good as the source behind it. We hold a firm line on what counts:
- On-chain data we read or reconstruct ourselves.
- An independent third-party auditor or leaderboard.
A second aggregator repeating the project’s own figures doesn’t count. Arithmetic on the project’s own number doesn’t count either. When the only available figure is one of those, the verdict stays unconfirmed. That rule is what keeps a green tick meaning something.
A dated snapshot, not a live feed
Every finding carries a date, and a block height where it sits on-chain. This is deliberate. A “verified” badge that silently flips itself is a claim nobody is checking, which is the exact failure mode we built this to avoid.
The raw figures refresh underneath on a schedule. A verdict only changes when a person re-checks it. When reality moves past an old finding we mark it “now stale” and keep the original, rather than quietly rewrite the record. Read the date: a finding from three months ago is exactly that.
We record the healthy cases too
This isn’t a wall of red. Where a project’s on-chain reality holds up, we record it with the same weight as the problems. Venice’s burn figures reconcile against the chain, and several Bittensor subnets are broadly distributed. A tool that only ever finds fault has stopped measuring and started campaigning, which is the opposite of the honest distribution this layer exists to show.
How to read a finding
- This isn’t financial advice or a price prediction.
- Overstated flags a gap between reported and measured figures. We aren’t alleging dishonesty.
- Most projects aren’t assessed yet. We show that openly rather than pad the coverage.
Lead with what’s verified, treat unconfirmed as unconfirmed, and check the date.