X Space with AILayer — ChainAware co-founder Martin joins YJ from Cluster Protocol, Sharon from SecuredApp, and Val from Foreverland in a wide-ranging discussion on AI and Web3: the opportunities, the risks, and which industries AI will disrupt first. Hosted by AILayer — a Bitcoin Layer 2 ZK rollup platform powering the next generation of AI-native blockchain applications. Listen to the full recording on X

Four projects at the intersection of AI and Web3 infrastructure sit down for one of the most practically grounded conversations about what AI agents can actually do in blockchain — and what the real barriers to doing it well are. The discussion covers decentralized compute, predictive AI versus LLMs, the risk profile of autonomous financial agents, which industries AI will disrupt first, and the core argument that Web3 marketing — not trading or portfolio management — represents the single largest AI opportunity in the space. Each speaker brings a distinct vantage point: infrastructure orchestration (Cluster Protocol), behavioral prediction and marketing agents (ChainAware), DeFi security and smart contract auditing (SecuredApp), and Web3 cloud computing (Foreverland). Together they map an honest, multi-perspective picture of where AI and Web3 are heading.

The Speakers: Four Perspectives on AI and Web3 Infrastructure

AILayer, the host of this X Space, is a Bitcoin Layer 2 solution built on advanced ZK rollup technology. It is EVM compatible, supports staking of BTC, BRC20, Inscription Ordinals, and VM assets including BNB, MATIC, USDT, and USDC, and aims to serve as a foundational platform for AI projects building across DeFi, SoFi, and DePIN sectors. Bringing together four project builders for this conversation about the next wave of AI and Web3 creates a natural complementarity: each speaker addresses a different layer of the stack.

YJ from Cluster Protocol brings the infrastructure orchestration perspective. Cluster Protocol is building a coordination layer for AI agents on top of Arbitrum’s orbit stack, providing the backbone infrastructure for hosting and running AI agents — including distributed datasets, models, and compute alongside a personalized AI agent filter layer. Sharon from SecuredApp brings the security lens: SecuredApp began as a blockchain security company and has expanded into token launchpad, NFT marketplace, and DAO community services, with a team that has audited major DeFi projects globally and holds membership in the DeFi Security Alliance. Val from Foreverland brings a pragmatic, experience-grounded view from three years of Web3 cloud computing operations serving over 100,000 developers. Martin from ChainAware brings the behavioral prediction and marketing agent perspective — the practical application of predictive AI to the user acquisition problem that is currently limiting every Web3 project’s growth. For the complete ChainAware platform overview, see our product guide.

AI and Decentralized Computing: Solving the Wrong Problem?

The opening question asks how AI can help Web3 break free from reliance on centralized computing power. YJ’s answer from the Cluster Protocol perspective frames decentralized compute as a meaningful alternative to cloud monopolies for certain use cases — specifically the ability to access individual GPU configurations (like a single RTX 4090) that major cloud providers like AWS don’t offer, at lower cost because there are no middlemen between compute contributors and users. DePIN projects like Akash Network, IO.net, and Cluster Protocol’s own proof-aggregated compute system represent real progress in this direction.

Martin’s response, however, challenges the framing of the question itself. Rather than asking how to decentralize the massive compute requirements of LLMs, he argues that the better question is whether those requirements are necessary in the first place. Specifically, he distinguishes between two fundamentally different types of AI that require very different compute profiles — and makes the case that the AI most valuable for blockchain applications is the type that requires far less compute than the LLM narrative suggests. For a deeper exploration of this distinction, see our generative vs predictive AI guide.

LLMs vs Predictive AI: Two Entirely Different Compute Profiles

Martin’s core argument on the compute question deserves careful attention because it reframes what “AI on the blockchain” actually requires. LLMs — large language models like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini — are, in his words, “huge computing engines, statistical autoregression models.” They require massive GPU clusters to run inference, enormous memory bandwidth to load model weights, and significant latency even with optimized infrastructure. Furthermore, they are fundamentally linguistic processing systems: they predict the most probable next token in a text sequence. Applying LLMs to blockchain behavioral analysis means using a linguistic tool on data that is inherently numerical and transactional — a fundamental mismatch between tool and problem.

Predictive AI models, by contrast, are domain-specific. They train on labeled behavioral datasets to classify future states — which wallet will commit fraud, which pool will rug pull, which user will borrow next. Once trained, these models execute extremely quickly against new input data: feeding a wallet’s transaction history into a pre-trained neural network takes milliseconds, not seconds. As Martin explains: “When you train predictive models, the executions are pretty fast. You don’t need to go into these topics of decentralized computing power. You can execute the predictive models in real time.” ChainAware’s fraud detection model — 98% accuracy, 2+ years in production — runs against standard wallets in under a second with no decentralized compute infrastructure required. The implication is that much of the debate about decentralized compute for AI is relevant to LLMs specifically, not to the predictive AI systems that are most useful for on-chain behavioral analysis. For the full technical breakdown, see our real AI use cases guide and our predictive AI guide.

The Smart Approach: Build Better Models, Not Bigger Infrastructure

Martin frames the choice explicitly: “Two ways to address the problem. One is to build even bigger, bigger computing and decentralized computing. The other way is to build smart predictive models which are actually maybe much better.” This is not an argument against decentralized compute per se — YJ’s point about GPU accessibility and cost reduction is valid for teams that genuinely need LLM-scale compute. Rather, it is an argument that many blockchain AI use cases should not require LLM-scale compute in the first place. Fraud detection, behavioral segmentation, rug pull prediction, and user intention calculation are all problems that well-trained predictive models solve efficiently without the resource overhead of general-purpose language models. Sharon from SecuredApp reinforces this view from the security side: decentralized AI models are more viable and feasible when they are specialized and domain-specific rather than attempting to decentralize the infrastructure of general-purpose LLMs.

See Predictive AI in Action — Free

ChainAware Wallet Auditor — Behavioral Profile in Under 1 Second

No LLMs. No cloud dependency. Pure domain-specific predictive AI trained on 18M+ Web3 wallets across 8 blockchains. Enter any address and get fraud probability (98% accuracy), experience level, risk tolerance, and behavioral intentions in real time. Free. No signup. This is what fast, efficient predictive AI looks like on-chain.

Audit Any Wallet Free Wallet Auditor Guide

The Limits of AI Decentralization: Val’s Honest Assessment

Val from Foreverland offers the most candid perspective on the decentralized AI compute question, and it deserves full consideration precisely because it challenges the consensus view. Her core argument is that AI models themselves — as opposed to the applications built on top of them — are inherently centralizing in their current form. The training of large AI models requires concentrated compute, centralized datasets, and significant coordination that distributed systems have not yet replicated at competitive quality. She points to DeepSeek as the only meaningful open-source LLM currently available, observing that “this is only one LLM, and it is not the rule for other developer teams to create open-source, decentralized LLMs.”

Val’s further point is that decentralization and AI solve different problems. Decentralization addresses security, immutability, and trust. AI addresses efficiency, pattern recognition, and automation. These goals are not inherently aligned, and conflating them creates confusion about what each technology can actually deliver. As she puts it: “Decentralization is not about efficiency — it’s more about security and reliance and immutability.” A decentralized AI model is not necessarily better at prediction than a centralized one; it is different in its trust properties. Whether those trust properties are necessary for a given application is a design question that each project must answer for itself, rather than assuming that decentralization is always the goal. For context on the blockchain trust and verification model, see our behavioral analytics guide.

The Real Risks of AI in Web3: Privacy, Bias, and Autonomous Trading

The second discussion topic shifts from opportunity to risk, and produces some of the most practically important observations in the entire conversation. Three distinct risk categories emerge across the speakers’ responses: privacy risks from AI data requirements, algorithmic bias inherited from training data, and the unique risks of fully autonomous financial agents operating on-chain.

Sharon from SecuredApp addresses privacy and bias with technical precision. AI models require large datasets for training — and in a blockchain context, that data can include sensitive information about user financial behavior, protocol interactions, and asset holdings. If not properly managed, that data creates exposure risks. On algorithmic bias, she notes that AI models inherit the biases present in their training data, which could lead to unfair decisions in DeFi contexts — particularly in automated trading or lending decisions where biased models might systematically disadvantage certain user categories. Her proposed mitigations are technically sophisticated: zero-knowledge proofs and secure multi-party computation to enable AI inference on private data without exposing the underlying information, combined with decentralized and auditable model governance. For the complete regulatory compliance framework, see our blockchain compliance guide and the FATF virtual assets recommendations .

Backtesting as Risk Mitigation: How ChainAware Publishes Accountability

Martin’s approach to AI risk in Web3 centers on a specific and actionable practice that he argues the entire industry should adopt: published backtesting. The concern is that many AI products in blockchain claim high accuracy without providing any verifiable evidence of how that accuracy was measured, on what data, and with what methodology. This opacity makes it impossible for users and clients to evaluate whether the claimed accuracy reflects real-world performance or optimistic in-sample testing on data the model was trained on.

ChainAware’s approach is to publish its prediction rates and backtesting methodology explicitly, with one specific and important constraint: the backtesting data must not overlap with the training data. Using training data for backtesting is a fundamental methodological error that produces artificially inflated accuracy figures — the model is being tested on data it has already learned from. As Martin states: “Everyone should publish just prediction rates, prediction occurrences, and backtesting — and backtesting should always be on obviously public data, and backtesting data should not be used for the training data.” ChainAware uses CryptoScamDB as its backtesting source for fraud detection — a publicly available database of confirmed scam addresses that provides an objective, independent test set for validating the 98% accuracy claim. This standard, if adopted industry-wide, would enable genuine comparison between competing AI products and eliminate the category of vague accuracy claims that currently makes evaluation difficult. For the complete fraud detection methodology, see our fraud detection guide and our fraud detector guide.

The Opportunity Side: Risks in Context

Martin also makes an important point about proportionality when thinking about AI risks in Web3. Risks exist and deserve serious mitigation — but they should be evaluated against the scale of the opportunity. Properly backtested predictive AI that achieves 98% fraud prediction accuracy has been in production at ChainAware for over two years. The value that system delivers in preventing fraudulent interactions — protecting new users, cleaning the ecosystem, enabling sustainable project growth — is enormous relative to the risks of a probabilistic system occasionally producing false positives. As Martin puts it: “I think the potential that we’re getting from AI agents — the potential of real products that are working — is so huge that even these risks, when they are mitigated properly, are not so significant.” The framework is not to minimize risks, but to ensure that risk mitigation is commensurate with risk severity rather than allowing edge-case concerns to block deployment of systems that deliver substantial real-world value. For more on the ecosystem-level impact of fraud reduction, see our Web3 growth guide.

Autonomous Trading Agents: The Highest-Risk AI+Web3 Scenario

Both YJ and Val converge on automated trading as the highest-risk application of AI in Web3 — and their concerns are worth examining in detail because they identify specific threat vectors rather than making vague warnings about AI in general.

YJ’s concern centers on the combination of full financial autonomy and decentralized operation. When an AI agent has been given funds and full discretion over trading decisions, any vulnerability in the agent’s decision-making logic, training data, or execution environment can result in financial loss at machine speed. He references the documented case of two AI chatbots developing their own communication patterns when left interacting without supervision — and extrapolates this to the financial context: “With full autonomy, the trust on the AI might reduce a bit, because you need to run these AI in specific environment conditions, but then that would not be truly decentralized.” The tension is real: full autonomy and full decentralization together create an attack surface that neither fully centralized AI (which can be monitored and corrected) nor manual DeFi (which requires human initiation) presents. For how ChainAware’s fraud detection integrates into DeFi security workflows, see our fraud detection guide.

The Attack Surface of Autonomous Trading Infrastructure

Val extends the autonomous trading risk analysis to the infrastructure layer. Autonomous trading agents rely on data feeds, model weights, and execution endpoints — all of which represent potential attack surfaces for threat actors who want to manipulate trading outcomes. As she explains: “I’m afraid that would be the most risky part of the AI story integrating with Web3 because probably there would be some attacks coming from threat actors in order to manipulate the trading vaults or models.” This is a specific and legitimate concern: data poisoning attacks that subtly bias a trading agent’s model toward favorable outcomes for an attacker are significantly harder to detect than direct fund theft and could persist undetected across many transactions. The mitigation is not to avoid autonomous trading agents entirely — the efficiency gain is too large — but to implement the kind of behavioral monitoring that ChainAware’s transaction monitoring agent provides: continuous surveillance that detects anomalous patterns before they result in irreversible on-chain losses. For the transaction monitoring approach, see our transaction monitoring guide and our AML and monitoring guide.

Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Privacy-Preserving AI Inference

Sharon’s proposed technical solution to the AI privacy problem in Web3 introduces one of the most significant emerging research areas at the intersection of cryptography and machine learning: privacy-preserving AI inference using zero-knowledge proofs and secure multi-party computation.

Standard AI inference requires the model to access the input data — which means that any AI system analyzing a user’s financial behavior must, in the conventional architecture, have access to that user’s transaction history. This creates a privacy risk: the entity running the model learns about the user’s behavior as a byproduct of providing a service. Zero-knowledge proofs offer a cryptographic solution: they allow a computation to be verified as correctly executed without revealing the inputs to the computation. Applied to AI inference, this means a user could submit their transaction history to an AI model and receive a behavioral profile output — without the model operator ever seeing the raw transaction data. As Sharon describes: “We can implement zero-knowledge proofs and secure multi-party computations to allow AI models to process data without exposing private information.” For broader context on cryptographic privacy in blockchain, see the Ethereum Foundation’s zero-knowledge proof documentation and our Web3 trust and verification guide.

Protect Your Platform and Users

ChainAware Fraud Detector — 98% Accuracy, Real-Time, Backtested Publicly

Unlike AI products that claim accuracy without publishing methodology, ChainAware publishes its 98% fraud detection accuracy against CryptoScamDB — backtesting data that was never used for training. Enter any wallet address on ETH, BNB, BASE, POLYGON, TON, or HAQQ and get a real-time fraud probability score. Free for every user.

Check Any Address Free Fraud Detection Guide

Which Industries Will AI Disrupt First in Web3?

The third discussion question generates significant diversity of opinion, reflecting the genuinely different vantage points of each speaker. Sharon from SecuredApp argues for DeFi as the first-disrupted sector, citing the ongoing boom in decentralized finance adoption, several countries moving toward Bitcoin reserves and crypto as legal tender, and the natural fit between AI automation and DeFi’s already highly automated infrastructure. She also points to supply chain and healthcare as secondary targets where blockchain transparency, combined with AI analysis, creates particularly strong efficiency gains.

Val from Foreverland makes the contrarian argument that no industry will be “eliminated” by Web3 going mainstream — because Web3 going mainstream in the replacement sense simply will not happen. Her point is more sociological than technical: technology adoption in human society is not characterized by binary replacement but by coexistence and layered adoption. Computers did not eliminate calculators or watches. The internet did not eliminate physical retail. Web3 will not eliminate Web2. Instead, it will serve an expanding base of users who have chosen to engage with it, coexisting with Web2 infrastructure rather than supplanting it. This is a realistic framing that many Web3 maximalists resist but that history consistently validates. For more on the Web3 adoption trajectory, see our Web3 growth guide.

Web3 Marketing: The Biggest AI Opportunity Nobody Is Talking About

Martin’s answer to the “which industry will AI disrupt first” question is deliberately specific and counterintuitive — and it is worth examining precisely because it diverges from the consensus responses that focus on trading, portfolio management, and DeFi automation. His argument is that Web3 marketing represents the largest addressable AI opportunity in the space, specifically because the current state of Web3 marketing is so far behind where it needs to be that the improvement potential is enormous.

The framing is direct: “The current Web3 marketing level is pretty stone age. It hasn’t reached Web2 marketing. We are still like before the Internet hype.” Every major marketing channel in Web3 — KOL campaigns, crypto media banners, Telegram ads, exchange listings, Discord announcements — delivers identical messages to heterogeneous audiences. A DeFi-native yield optimizer with five years of complex protocol history receives the same promotional content as someone who connected their first wallet last week. The conversion rate from this undifferentiated approach is predictably poor, which directly causes the prohibitively high user acquisition costs that prevent Web3 projects from achieving financial sustainability. As Martin explains: “If you have Web3 marketing agents, and the marketing agents predict the behavior of the users based on predictive models and know which content to create, which resonating content — we get much higher engagement.” For the complete Web3 personalization framework, see our AI marketing guide and our intention-based marketing guide.

Why Marketing Beats Trading as the Primary AI Application

The reasoning for prioritizing marketing over trading as the highest-impact AI application is both commercial and structural. Trading AI agents face significant technical challenges — the risk of adversarial attacks on model weights, the difficulty of maintaining performance across changing market conditions, and the regulatory uncertainty around fully autonomous financial agents. Marketing AI agents, by contrast, operate in a lower-stakes environment where errors are recoverable (a suboptimal marketing message has much lower consequence than an erroneous trade), the feedback loops are clear and measurable, and the infrastructure (wallet behavioral profiles, content generation) is already mature. Furthermore, marketing AI solves a universal problem that affects every Web3 project regardless of sector — every protocol, every DApp, every service needs to acquire users. Solving user acquisition efficiently through personalization therefore amplifies the success of every other AI+Web3 application by ensuring those applications can reach the users who would benefit from them. For more on how personalization addresses the Web3 growth bottleneck, see our high-conversion marketing guide and our Web3 personas guide.

The User Acquisition Cost Crisis: 10-20x Higher Than Web2

Martin provides the specific quantification that makes the Web3 marketing problem concrete. Web2 platforms — after the AdTech revolution driven by Google’s behavioral targeting innovation — achieved user acquisition costs in the $30-40 range for transacting customers. Web3 platforms today face user acquisition costs that are 10-20 times higher. This is not a minor operational inefficiency — it is a fundamental business model failure. No project can build sustainable revenue when acquiring each customer costs hundreds of dollars but the economics of blockchain transactions produce relatively thin margins per user in the early growth phase.

The reason for this disparity is structural, not accidental. Web3 marketing has not yet developed the behavioral targeting infrastructure that Web2 deployed through AdTech. Every dollar spent on Web3 marketing reaches an undifferentiated audience and converts at a rate that reflects that lack of targeting precision. As Martin states: “In Web2, a user acquisition cost is maybe $30-35-40. In Web3, we are speaking a user acquisition cost factor 10-20x higher. So this is what you’re facing in Web3 now.” The solution is identical to what Web2 deployed: behavioral targeting based on demonstrated user intentions, delivering personalized messages to users whose behavioral profiles indicate genuine interest in the specific product being promoted. For the historical Web2 parallel, see our ChainAware vs Google Web2 guide and Statista’s Google advertising revenue data .

The Iteration Argument: Why Cash Flows Are the Real Bottleneck

Martin makes a foundational product development argument that connects user acquisition costs directly to the innovation velocity of the entire Web3 ecosystem. The argument has a clean logical structure: no product is perfect in its first version — every product becomes better through iteration informed by real user feedback. To iterate, founders need users. To get users sustainably, founders need cash flows. To generate cash flows, the economics of user acquisition must be viable. Currently, they are not viable because acquisition costs are too high.

The consequence of this economic trap is a predictable pattern: Web3 projects launch with genuine innovation, fail to acquire users at sustainable cost, conduct a token sale to fund ongoing operations, watch the token price decline as speculative interest fades without sustainable utility, and eventually wind down — never having had the chance to iterate toward the product-market fit that was potentially within reach. As Martin explains: “The projects need to get users. The projects need to get, from users, the cash flows. There has to be a much higher user conversion rate. For the cash flows you need user acquisition — you have to bring massively down, by a factor of tens, the user acquisition cost in Web3.” Reducing that cost is therefore not merely a marketing efficiency improvement — it is the prerequisite for the entire Web3 ecosystem’s ability to evolve from first-generation products to mature, market-validated applications. For more on the sustainable Web3 business model argument, see our unit costs and AdTech guide.

Solve the User Acquisition Crisis

ChainAware Marketing Agents — 1:1 Personalization at Wallet Connection

Stop paying 10-20x Web2 acquisition costs for mass marketing that doesn’t convert. ChainAware’s marketing agents calculate each connecting wallet’s behavioral profile and serve resonating 1:1 content automatically — borrowers get borrower messages, traders get trader messages. No KYC. No cookies. Runs 24/7. Starts with free analytics in 24 hours.

Start Free Analytics AI Marketing Guide

Coexistence vs Replacement: Val’s Case for a Realistic Web3 Future

Val’s contribution to the industry disruption discussion extends well beyond a list of sectors to a philosophical framework for thinking about technological transitions that is grounded in historical pattern recognition rather than ideological preference. Her core observation is that technology adoption does not work through binary replacement — one paradigm eliminating the previous one — but through coexistence and layered adoption where different populations, with different needs, trust levels, and educational backgrounds, adopt new technologies at different rates and to different degrees.

Her examples are deliberately mundane: computers did not eliminate calculators or watches, even though they can perform the functions of both. The internet did not eliminate physical retail, print media, or telephone communication, even though it is technically superior for many of their functions. People continue using the less optimal technology because habit, preference, familiarity, and comfort are also real factors in technology adoption decisions. Web3 faces the same social reality. As Val observes: “Even if we may see that more and more people are utilizing Web3, it doesn’t mean that the majority of them are utilizing it. Just look at the older generation — look at your dads, moms, grannies. How will they get the tokens? How will they use them?” The realistic near-term vision is therefore not mainstream Web3 adoption replacing Web2, but expanding Web3 adoption alongside continuing Web2 infrastructure — with AI accelerating Web3’s ability to serve its growing user base more effectively. For the broader adoption trajectory discussion, see our DeFi onboarding guide.

AI-Powered Smart Contract Security: SecuredApp’s Approach

Sharon’s final contribution to the growth question focuses on one of the most practically valuable applications of AI in the Web3 security space: automated smart contract auditing. Smart contracts are the execution layer of all DeFi protocols, and their vulnerability to exploits has resulted in billions of dollars of losses over the history of the space. Traditional smart contract auditing is time-consuming, expensive, and dependent on the expertise of individual human auditors who may miss subtle vulnerability patterns in complex codebases.

AI-powered audit automation changes this equation significantly. Models trained on historical vulnerability patterns can scan smart contract code in seconds, flagging categories of vulnerability — reentrancy attacks, integer overflows, access control failures, flash loan attack vectors — that match known exploit signatures. Crucially, AI can also do this in real time during deployment and operation, not just in pre-launch audits. As Sharon explains: “Smart contracts are prone to vulnerabilities and exploits. We can use AI to automate smart contract audits, detect vulnerabilities and prevent hacks in real time.” SecuredApp’s integration of AI into its security tooling — including the Solidity Shield Scanner — represents exactly this approach: using AI to make high-quality security screening more accessible and more continuous. For ChainAware’s complementary approach to on-chain security through behavioral fraud prediction, see our fraud detection guide and our rug pull detection guide. For broader context on DeFi security best practices, see ConsenSys Diligence’s smart contract security resources .

DAO Governance and AI-Assisted Decision-Making

Sharon also raises a less frequently discussed AI application in Web3: improving DAO governance decision-making. DAOs face a well-documented governance problem — proposal participation rates are low, voting is often uninformed because voters lack the context to evaluate complex technical or economic proposals, and decision-making velocity is slow because each governance action requires manual coordination. AI systems that analyze on-chain data, model proposal impacts, and surface relevant context for voters could dramatically improve governance quality without requiring any change to the underlying decentralized structure. This remains a nascent application area, but the combination of transparent on-chain governance data and AI analytical capability makes it a natural fit. For more on how behavioral analytics supports governance quality, see our behavioral analytics guide.

Comparison Tables

LLMs vs Predictive AI for Blockchain Applications

AI Risk Categories in Web3: Assessment and Mitigation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is AILayer and why did it host this X Space?

AILayer is an innovative Bitcoin Layer 2 solution that uses advanced ZK rollup technology to enhance Bitcoin transaction performance and scalability. It is EVM compatible, supports a broad range of assets including BTC, BRC20, Inscription Ordinals, BNB, MATIC, USDT, and USDC, and aims to serve as a foundational platform for AI projects building across DeFi, SoFi, and DePIN sectors. The X Space brought together builders from across the AI+Web3 ecosystem to discuss the opportunities and challenges at this intersection — directly relevant to AILayer’s mission of enabling AI-native applications on a Bitcoin-secured foundation.

Why does ChainAware use predictive AI instead of LLMs for blockchain analysis?

LLMs are linguistic processing systems — they predict the most probable next text token based on patterns in training data. Blockchain behavioral analysis requires a completely different type of intelligence: classifying future financial actions from numerical transactional history. Using an LLM for blockchain analysis is a category mismatch — like using a language translator to perform chemical synthesis. Beyond the functional mismatch, LLMs require massive computational resources that make real-time blockchain inference impractical. ChainAware’s domain-specific predictive models, trained specifically on blockchain behavioral data, execute against new wallet addresses in under a second with no heavy compute infrastructure. This is why ChainAware achieves 98% fraud detection accuracy in real-time production rather than near-real-time inference with a general-purpose model.

How does ChainAware verify and publish its 98% fraud detection accuracy?

ChainAware backtests its fraud detection model against CryptoScamDB — a publicly available database of confirmed scam and fraud addresses that is entirely separate from the training data used to build the model. Using independent test data (not training data) is essential for producing accuracy figures that reflect real-world performance rather than in-sample overfitting. The 98% figure means that when ChainAware’s fraud model is applied to addresses in the CryptoScamDB test set, it correctly classifies 98% of them as fraudulent before their fraud was documented. This specific methodology — published, independent backtesting on verified public data — is what Martin argues the entire AI+blockchain industry should adopt as a minimum standard for accuracy claims.

What is the Web3 user acquisition cost problem and how does AI fix it?

Web3 user acquisition costs are currently 10-20x higher than equivalent Web2 acquisition costs ($300-800+ per transacting user vs $30-40 in Web2). The root cause is mass marketing: every marketing channel in Web3 delivers identical messages to heterogeneous audiences, producing low conversion rates that drive up the effective cost per acquired user. AI fixes this by enabling personalization at scale — using each connecting wallet’s on-chain behavioral history to calculate their specific intentions and generate matched content automatically. A borrower sees borrowing content; a trader sees trading content; an NFT collector sees NFT-relevant messaging. Higher relevance produces higher conversion rates, which reduces the effective cost per acquired user — the same transformation that Google’s AdTech delivered in Web2 through behavioral targeting. ChainAware’s Web3 marketing agents implement this personalization using predictive AI models trained on 18M+ wallet profiles across 8 blockchains.

Will AI replace Web3 or Web2? What does the future look like?

Val from Foreverland’s historical perspective offers the most grounded answer: neither technology replaces the other. Technology adoption follows patterns of coexistence and layered usage rather than binary replacement. Computers did not eliminate calculators; the internet did not eliminate physical retail; Web3 will not eliminate Web2. Different populations adopt new technologies at different rates, and many people will continue using Web2 infrastructure for reasons of habit, education, and preference even as Web3 usage expands. The realistic future is an expanding Web3 user base — accelerated by AI improvements in onboarding, fraud reduction, and user experience — coexisting alongside continuing Web2 infrastructure. AI’s role in this trajectory is to make Web3 more accessible, more trustworthy, and more capable of delivering sustainable value to both new and existing participants.

This article is based on the X Space hosted by AILayer featuring ChainAware co-founder Martin alongside YJ from Cluster Protocol, Sharon from SecuredApp, and Val from Foreverland. Listen to the full recording on X . For integration support or product questions, visit chainaware.ai.

The post AI and Web3 — Opportunities, Risks and the Next Wave — X Space with AILayer first appeared on ChainAware.ai.

X Space with Magic Square — ChainAware co-founder Martin joins the Magic Square community to discuss Web3 AdTech, predictive fraud detection, user acquisition costs, and why the same two forces that drove Web2’s growth will determine whether Web3 crosses the chasm. Listen to the full recording on X

Most Web3 projects excel at building technology and fail at finding users. The unit cost of a blockchain business process has dropped to near zero through full automation — yet customer acquisition costs remain brutally high, hovering around $1,000 per transacting DeFi user. Meanwhile, new entrants burn their fingers on rug pulls and leave the ecosystem permanently, shrinking the addressable market every day. In this X Space hosted by Magic Square, ChainAware co-founder Martin maps exactly why this situation exists, what history tells us about how to fix it, and how ChainAware’s predictive AI platform addresses both problems simultaneously. The conversation covers the intellectual property moat of custom AI models, the critical distinction between predictive AI and LLMs, the mechanics of wallet-based behavioral targeting, and why the Web2 AdTech revolution is the most relevant precedent for where Web3 goes next.

From SmartCredit to ChainAware: How Each Product Discovered the Next

ChainAware did not start as an AI fraud detection company. It started as a DeFi lending platform. Martin and his twin brother Tarmo — both former Credit Suisse Vice Presidents with over ten years at the institution in Zurich — built SmartCredit.io first: a fixed-term, fixed-interest DeFi borrowing and lending marketplace. Before joining Credit Suisse, Martin had already launched four successful products with a combined user base that has grown to somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 users over the years. That product-building instinct defined how ChainAware was built — through direct observation of what each product needed, not through top-down strategic planning.

SmartCredit required credit scoring. Credit scoring required fraud detection. Fraud detection, once built, revealed it could be applied to smart contract rug pull prediction. Rug pull detection expanded into a full wallet auditing capability. Wallet auditing created the behavioral data foundation needed for personalized user targeting. Each step answered a question raised by the previous one. As Martin explains: “What is Chain Aware? We are practically a prediction engine now. We are predicting behavior. We are predicting who is doing fraud on the blockchain, who is doing rug pulls, who is borrowing next, who is lending next, who is doing trading next. We are predicting behavior.” For the complete product architecture overview, see our ChainAware product guide.

The Prediction Engine: Fraud Detection, Rug Pull Detection, and Wallet Auditing

ChainAware’s platform operates across three interconnected prediction layers, each serving a distinct use case while sharing the same underlying behavioral data infrastructure. Understanding how these layers work together clarifies why they are more powerful as a combined system than as standalone tools.

Fraud detection addresses the most immediate trust problem in Web3: interacting with unknown addresses. On a pseudonymous blockchain, you cannot know whether the person behind an address has a history of scams, money laundering, or protocol manipulation. ChainAware’s fraud detection model analyzes the complete transaction history of any address and produces a real-time fraud probability score — with 98% backtested accuracy against confirmed fraud cases from CryptoScamDB. The prediction is forward-looking, not backward-looking: it tells you what this address is likely to do next, not just what it has done in the past. For the complete fraud detection methodology, see our fraud detection guide.

Rug Pull Prediction: 100% Loss Prevention

Rug pull detection operates on a different threat model. While fraud detection evaluates individual wallets, rug pull detection evaluates the people behind smart contracts and liquidity pools. The distinction matters commercially: a trading loss might cost 20-50% depending on stop losses, but a rug pull results in 100% loss — “chairman total shard” as Martin describes it. ChainAware traces both the contract creator’s funding chain and the behavioral histories of all liquidity providers, identifying the fraud signature in their prior on-chain activity rather than in the contract code itself. This approach catches the sophisticated rug pulls that static contract scanners miss entirely, because sophisticated operators deliberately write clean code while their behavioral history remains permanently on-chain. For the complete rug pull methodology, see our rug pull detection guide.

Wallet Auditing: The Full Behavioral Profile

Wallet auditing combines all prediction layers into a single behavioral profile for any address. The audit calculates experience level, risk tolerance, behavioral intentions (borrower, lender, trader, staker, gamer), and fraud probability — constructing what Martin calls a “human Persona behind the blockchain.” This profile requires no KYC, no identity disclosure, and no data sharing beyond the address itself and its public transaction history. Beyond security, the wallet auditor serves a commercial function: it enables Web3 platforms to understand exactly who is visiting their platform, what those users are likely to do next, and how to reach them with resonating content. For the wallet auditor implementation, see our wallet auditor guide and our behavioral analytics guide.

Three Layers. One Platform. Instant Results.

ChainAware Free Tools — Fraud Detector, Rug Pull Detector, Wallet Auditor

Enter any wallet address or contract and get the full picture in under a second: fraud probability (98% accuracy), rug pull risk with full creator and LP chain analysis, experience level, risk profile, and behavioral intentions. No signup. No KYC. Free for individual use on ETH, BNB, BASE, HAQQ, and more.

Audit Any Wallet Free Check Fraud Risk

The Intellectual Property Moat: Why Custom AI Models Cannot Be Copied

One of the most commercially significant points Martin makes in the conversation concerns the structural difference between building on open-source smart contract code and building proprietary AI models. Most DeFi projects are built on copied foundations — and Martin names this directly with specific examples. Compound wrote the original lending protocol source code. Aave copied Compound’s source code. Then every other lending protocol copied Compound or Aave. PancakeSwap copied the PancakeSwap predecessor. Uniswap then copied or iterated on that, and subsequently the entire DEX ecosystem copied Uniswap. As Martin states clearly: “If you take Uniswap, Uniswap copied a pancreas source code and then everyone copied Uniswap. Everyone copied everyone else’s source code.”

This copying dynamic made DeFi protocols highly replicable but also highly commoditized. Any team with basic Solidity skills can deploy a fork of an existing protocol in days. By contrast, ChainAware’s fraud detection, rug pull prediction, and behavioral analytics models are proprietary intellectual property built over more than two years of model training, backtesting, and iteration. Nobody can fork a trained neural network the way they can fork a GitHub repository. As Martin explains: “If you have AI models, these are not public. This is your intellectual property that you have built. And this intellectual property no one can copy. They can try to redevelop it — meaning it’s a very strong entry barrier.” When competitors claim comparable AI capabilities, ChainAware’s response is direct: specify your prediction accuracy, your data set, and your backtesting methodology. So far, no challenger has provided those details. For more on the competitive positioning, see our predictive AI guide.

98% Accuracy in Real-Time: The Deliberate Downgrade from 99%

ChainAware’s fraud model journey from 60% to 98% accuracy took over two years of iterative development. The path was not linear: initial models achieved roughly 60% prediction accuracy, then improved to 70%, then eventually reached 98%. During that progression, the team also achieved 99% accuracy — and deliberately rejected it. The reason was operational: the 99% model required processing so much additional data that it crossed the threshold from real-time to near-real-time response. For fraud detection specifically, that latency distinction is consequential. A warning that arrives after an interaction has completed offers significantly less user value than one that arrives in time to prevent the interaction entirely.

The decision to stabilize at 98% real-time rather than 99% near-real-time reflects a clear product philosophy: accuracy that arrives too late is less valuable than slightly lower accuracy that arrives in time to act on. As Martin explains: “We had to decide — do we offer 98% real-time or 99% near-real-time? We just say okay, time to scale down. We offer 98% real-time.” The 98% figure is also, as it happens, a more credible claim than 99% — precisely because it acknowledges the real trade-offs involved in production AI systems rather than overpromising. For the complete model accuracy discussion, see our fraud detector guide and our generative vs predictive AI guide.

Predictive AI vs LLM: Two Different Tools for Two Different Jobs

A community member asks whether AI might at some point be turned against users — whether the technology that protects could also harm. Martin’s answer reframes the question entirely by separating two fundamentally different types of AI that the public currently conflates under a single term.

Large Language Models — the category that includes ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and the AI tools that became mainstream from 2022 onward — are fundamentally statistical autoregression engines. They learn probabilistic relationships between tokens in text and generate the most statistically probable continuation given the input. Martin is precise about what this means: “LLM is just a statistical auto regression engine, meaning you’re predicting the next word, the next words, the next paragraph, the next sequence.” LLMs are excellent at content generation, conversation, summarisation, and translation. They are not designed to make deterministic numerical predictions about future behavioral events from structured transactional data.

Predictive AI — the category ChainAware operates in — uses supervised learning on labeled behavioral datasets to classify and predict future states. Rather than generating probable text, it produces probability scores for specific outcomes: this address will commit fraud with 0.87 probability, this pool will rug pull with 0.93 probability, this wallet’s next action will be a leveraged trade with 0.74 probability. These are deterministic numerical outputs trained on domain-specific financial behavioral data. As Martin frames it: “Predictive AI will help you to see Personas behind these bits and bytes.” The Matrix analogy is apt — most people see raw transaction data, while ChainAware’s models see the person behind it. For a full breakdown of the two AI categories, see our generative vs predictive AI guide and our real AI use cases guide.

Building Trust in the Web3 Ecosystem: Verification Without KYC

Martin’s argument about ecosystem-level fraud impact extends well beyond individual user protection. The case he makes is structural: the rate at which new users enter and stay in the Web3 ecosystem is directly constrained by the rate at which they encounter fraud, and every user who burns their fingers on rug pulls and leaves permanently represents a permanent reduction in the ecosystem’s growth ceiling.

The pattern Martin describes is familiar to anyone who has tried to onboard non-crypto-native users. A new participant joins, gets exposed to shilling groups, buys into promoted tokens, experiences one or more rug pulls, and concludes that the entire space is fraudulent. They do not try again. They become negative advocates who discourage others from entering. This cycle compounds over time: high fraud rates reduce new user retention, which reduces liquidity and ecosystem vitality, which makes the space less attractive to the next wave of entrants. Conversely, reducing fraud rates creates a trust environment where new users can explore, learn, and eventually become committed participants. As Martin states: “Solving the fraud issue — giving all users possibilities first to verify themselves anonymously. Verification doesn’t mean that you have to open your KYC. You just have to open your address and show who you are. Via this verification, we will create trust in a blockchain.” For the complete trust infrastructure argument, see our Share My Audit guide and our Web3 trust guide.

Anonymous Trust: The Address as Identity

ChainAware’s approach to trust infrastructure rests on a specific insight about blockchain’s properties. On-chain transaction history is immutable, permanent, and public — yet it requires no personal identity disclosure to read or share. This creates a unique opportunity: an address can prove its trustworthiness without ever revealing who owns it. A wallet with five years of sophisticated DeFi interactions, zero fraud associations, and consistent protocol usage tells a compelling story about its owner’s reliability — purely from public behavioral data, without KYC, without identity documents, and without any centralized verification authority. Martin’s practical application is direct: when someone approaches with a business proposal, ask them to sign their wallet and share the audit. If their transaction history is clean and their behavioral profile is consistent with their claims, the interaction can proceed. If it is not, the evidence is cryptographic and permanent. For how this translates into the Share My Wallet product, see our Share My Audit guide.

The Web3 Unit Cost Revolution and the User Acquisition Paradox

One of the most analytically precise arguments in the conversation concerns what Martin calls the unit cost paradox. Web3 has achieved something genuinely revolutionary: it has automated business processes end-to-end, eliminating the back-office operations, settlement delays, counterparty risk, and institutional intermediaries that make financial services expensive in traditional systems. The unit cost of a DeFi lending transaction, a token swap, or a yield farming interaction is a fraction of the equivalent traditional finance operation — and in many cases, the costs shift to the user in the form of gas fees, making the protocol’s marginal cost effectively zero.

Yet despite this dramatic unit cost reduction, Web3 projects consistently fail to become sustainable businesses. The reason is that user acquisition costs are completely disconnected from operational costs. While protocol operations cost pennies, acquiring a genuine transacting DeFi user costs approximately $1,000 or more through existing marketing channels. That asymmetry makes unit economics non-viable at every scale. As Martin explains: “There is no point if your unit cost of a business process is $1, $5, $10 and your customer acquisition costs are $1,000. You have to balance it out, you have to fix it.” Web2 faced the same paradox in the early 2000s — business process costs had dropped dramatically through digitization, but customer acquisition costs remained in the thousands of dollars until AdTech changed the equation. For more on the unit economics framework, see our unit costs and AdTech guide.

The Google Parallel: How Web2 Solved AdTech and What Web3 Must Do Next

Martin’s historical framing of the Web3 problem draws a precise and instructive parallel to Web2’s experience. In Web2’s early growth phase, two specific problems prevented mainstream adoption: rampant credit card fraud that made consumers reluctant to transact online, and prohibitively expensive user acquisition costs driven by mass marketing. Both problems had to be solved for Web2 to cross the chasm from early adopters to mass market.

Fraud was suppressed through mandated transaction monitoring systems — every bank and payment processor was required to deploy real-time AI-based monitoring that could detect new fraud patterns as they emerged. User acquisition costs were reduced through AdTech — Google’s innovation of using search history and browsing behavior to infer user intentions and target advertising accordingly. The critical insight Martin emphasizes is that it was not the search engine itself that made Google the most valuable company in advertising history. Rather, it was the AdTech layer built on top of it. As Martin states directly: “It wasn’t the search engine, it was the AdTech that they created. Twitter, Facebook — let’s be transparent — these are AdTech companies. Google gets 95% of its revenues from AdTech. It’s user targeting.” For the complete Web2-Web3 parallel, see our ChainAware vs Google Web2 guide and Statista’s Google advertising revenue data .

Blockchain History as the Web3 Equivalent of Search History

Google’s AdTech revolution worked because search queries and browsing behavior provided a proxy for user intent — imperfect and easily gamed, but vastly better than demographic targeting. ChainAware’s approach to Web3 AdTech uses a data source that is structurally superior: on-chain transaction history. Every blockchain transaction reflects a deliberate, paid financial decision — not a casual query or accidental page visit. The behavioral signal is higher quality precisely because the gas fee filter removes casual, performative, and accidental behavior. A wallet that has executed twenty leveraged trades on a derivatives protocol has demonstrated its preferences through real money, not just search terms. Predicting its next action with 98% accuracy and targeting it accordingly produces a dramatically higher return on marketing spend than sending the same message to every visitor. For how this translates into the marketing agent product, see our AI marketing for Web3 guide and our intention-based marketing guide.

Stop Sending the Same Message to Everyone

ChainAware Web3 Analytics — Know Your Real User Base in 24 Hours

Before personalising, you need to understand who is actually visiting your platform. ChainAware Analytics shows you the real behavioral distribution of connecting wallets: experience levels, risk profiles, intentions (trader, borrower, staker, gamer), and Wallet Rank breakdown. Two lines of code in Google Tag Manager. Results in 24-48 hours. Free forever.

Get Free Analytics Analytics Guide

Mass Marketing vs Targeted Marketing: Why Web3 Is Stuck in the 1990s

Martin’s critique of Web3 marketing is specific and data-driven. Every major marketing channel in the current Web3 ecosystem delivers the same message to every recipient regardless of their behavioral profile, intentions, or experience level. CoinGecko banner ads reach DeFi veterans and complete beginners simultaneously, showing both the identical creative. CMC listings present the same project overview to retail speculators and sophisticated protocol researchers. KOL posts go out to entire follower bases whether those followers are stakers, traders, NFT collectors, or people who bought their first token last week. Cointelegraph articles are read by everyone who arrives at that headline, regardless of what they are actually looking for.

This mass marketing approach has two compounding problems. First, it generates traffic without generating relevant traffic — visitors arrive at a platform, find messaging that does not speak to their specific needs, and leave without converting. Second, the cost per impression is identical regardless of whether the impression lands in front of a highly qualified prospect or a completely unqualified one. The combination produces terrible unit economics: high spend, low conversion, enormous effective cost per acquired user. As Martin observes: “Crypto media — you go to Cointelegraph, same message for everyone. You see the crypto banners, same message for everyone. But same message for everyone doesn’t resonate with everyone. People are different, people have different intentions, people have different behavior. So you have to resonate with the users.” For more on how personalization addresses this, see our high-conversion Web3 marketing guide and our Web3 personas guide.

The Amazon Landing Page: No Two Visitors See the Same Website

Martin uses Amazon.com as the most vivid illustration of what genuinely personalized user experience looks like at scale. Amazon’s personalization infrastructure means that every visitor to the site sees a different version of the homepage, different product recommendations, different pricing emphasis, and different promotional content — all calculated in real time based on that specific visitor’s browsing history, purchase history, and behavioral signals inferred from millions of comparable user journeys.

This personalization is not cosmetic. It is not about color schemes or font choices. It is about matching the product surface to the specific intent each visitor brings to that session. A user who has been browsing professional photography equipment sees professional camera recommendations. A user who has been researching home office setups sees ergonomic furniture. Neither visitor is served generic “bestsellers” — they are each served a version of Amazon optimized for their specific, data-derived intention profile. Web3 today operates at the opposite extreme: every visitor to every DApp sees the same landing page, the same hero message, the same call-to-action, regardless of whether they are a DeFi native with three years of leveraged trading history or someone connecting a wallet for the first time. As Martin states: “Go on Amazon.com and compare your landing page with others. Every landing page is different because it’s calculated based on your intentions. There’s no two same landing pages. Go in Web3 — everyone gets the same landing page. Every single user.” For how ChainAware’s marketing agent creates this Amazon-style experience for Web3 platforms, see our Web3 adaptive UX guide and our user segmentation guide.

The Web3 AdTech Competitive Landscape: Underdeveloped and Misunderstood

In response to a question about competitors, Martin describes the state of the Web3 AdTech market in precise terms that reveal both the opportunity and the misconception that characterizes most of it. The reference point is the Safary Web3 Growth Landscape — a regularly maintained map of Web3 marketing and analytics companies that ChainAware joined in August, listed in the attribution and AdTech sectors. The landscape contains over 100 companies that have collectively received more than $1 billion in investment.

Looking closely at the companies in the AdTech category, however, reveals a significant mismatch between label and function. Most of them are publisher networks — platforms like Coinzilla and BitMedia that distribute crypto advertising inventory across publisher sites. These are ad distribution networks, not AdTech companies in the behavioral targeting sense. They can deliver impressions but cannot calculate user intentions, segment audiences by behavioral profiles, or serve personalized content based on on-chain history. Real AdTech requires two components: an analytics layer that calculates user behavioral intentions from their history, and a targeting layer that delivers content matched to those intentions. The combination of both in a Web3-native form, using on-chain transaction history as the data source, is what Martin describes as nearly absent from the current market. As he explains: “If you’re looking at the AdTech sector and analyzing these companies, you see that the part of real targeting — intention calculation, behavior calculation, combined with targeting — is pretty underdeveloped.” For a breakdown of how ChainAware fits into the Web3 growth landscape, see our behavioral analytics guide.

Why Wallet-to-Wallet Messaging Fails as a Targeting Method

One approach that some companies have tried is wallet-to-wallet messaging: sending communications directly to wallet addresses via on-chain protocols or aggregator interfaces. Martin dismisses this approach with a specific data point: only approximately 5% of users have enabled wallet-to-wallet messaging. The 95% who have not enabled it either never see the message or find it in a spam folder they rarely check. Beyond the reach problem, there is a consent and relevance problem: unsolicited wallet messages are widely perceived as spam, which actively damages brand perception rather than improving conversion. Effective targeting requires reaching users in the contexts where they are already engaged — not inserting messages into communication channels they mostly ignore. For more on effective Web3 user acquisition approaches, see our Web3 marketing guide.

AML vs Transaction Monitoring: The Regulatory Distinction Most Projects Ignore

Martin addresses the compliance landscape with a technical distinction that has significant practical consequences for any Web3 project that needs to meet regulatory requirements. The two primary compliance tools in the blockchain space — AML (Anti-Money Laundering) analysis and transaction monitoring — are fundamentally different technologies that solve different problems, yet most projects and even most compliance vendors treat them as interchangeable.

AML analysis is a rules-based algorithm. It traces the flow of known-illicit funds through the blockchain ecosystem, following contaminated money from flagged sources through intermediate addresses to identify who may have received proceeds from criminal activity. The rules that define “illicit” are codified based on known past cases. This makes AML analysis effective at tracking funds connected to previously identified bad actors, but structurally incapable of detecting genuinely new fraud patterns that have not yet been flagged. Regulators under MiCA and FATF frameworks require both AML compliance and real-time AI-based transaction monitoring — not one as a substitute for the other. As Martin explains: “AML is a rules-based algorithm. But the regulator mandates transaction monitoring because the same happened in Web2. Every bank, every virtual asset service provider has to do actually both.” For the complete regulatory context and compliance implementation, see our AML and transaction monitoring guide, our blockchain compliance guide, and the FATF virtual assets recommendations .

Why Fraud Farms Stay Ahead of Static Tools

Martin introduces the concept of “fraud farms” — sophisticated organizations that operate fraud as a professional business, continuously adapting their methods to circumvent the detection systems their targets deploy. These operations know what tools their counterparties use. They design their fraud patterns specifically to pass rules-based AML checks while remaining active. Static rules-based systems, by their nature, can only detect patterns that have already been codified — which means they are always behind the current state of fraud innovation. AI-based transaction monitoring learns from new patterns continuously, updating its detection capability as new fraud techniques emerge. This continuous learning capability is what makes it mandated rather than optional under forward-looking regulatory frameworks. For the transaction monitoring agent implementation, see our transaction monitoring agent guide.

Meet Both Regulatory Requirements in One Integration

ChainAware Transaction Monitoring Agent — AI-Based, Real-Time, MiCA-Compliant

AML tools track known-illicit funds. Transaction monitoring predicts new fraud before it happens. Regulators require both. ChainAware’s transaction monitoring agent continuously screens your platform’s address set, flags behavioral fraud patterns in real time, and notifies your compliance team via Telegram. 24/7. Expert-level. No headcount required.

View Compliance Plans AML & TM Guide

ChainGPT Partnership and IDO: Why the Right Ecosystem Partner Matters

The conversation covers ChainAware’s IDO plans, with Martin providing both the commercial details and the strategic reasoning behind choosing ChainGPT as the exclusive launchpad and lead investor. The IDO was announced the day before this recording, with ChainGPT as lead investor alongside Koinix. The launch would use ChainGPT’s launchpad exclusively. At the time of listing, the fully diluted valuation was set at $3.5 million, with an initial market cap of $80,000 before liquidity — a structure Martin described as deliberately attractive to genuine participants rather than optimized for opening-day hype.

Beyond the economics, Martin’s assessment of ChainGPT as a partner reflects a specific philosophy about which relationships create long-term value. ChainGPT’s investment thesis focuses explicitly on projects with real technology and genuine use cases, screening out the category of project that combines copied source code with a large shilling army. As Martin explains: “ChainGPT is looking for the real stuff. They’re not looking for someone like what we had in DeFi summer — 95% of projects copied someone and put a shilling army on top. ChainGPT is focused on AI, analytics, predictions. That’s what they focus on. We are very happy to be in this family.” The contrast Martin draws with anonymous VC relationships — where partners may not understand the technology they are backing — highlights how partnership quality affects both credibility and long-term project sustainability.

Crossing the Chasm: The Two Requirements for Web3 Mainstream Adoption

Martin’s closing remarks synthesise everything discussed into a single, clear framework for Web3 mainstream adoption. The framework has exactly two components, both historically demonstrated in Web2, both currently unresolved in Web3.

First, fraud rates must decrease significantly. High fraud rates prevent new users from establishing positive experiences in the ecosystem. Every rug pull experienced by a newcomer is a permanent ecosystem exit. Building trust through accessible, anonymous behavioral verification — making it possible for any participant to verify any address without KYC — is the mechanism by which fraud rates fall. When bad actors know they can be identified by their on-chain behavior before they execute the next scam, the cost-benefit calculation of fraud changes. When potential victims can check an address before they interact, the success rate of fraud attempts drops. Both effects compound over time to create a more trustworthy ecosystem that retains new entrants rather than driving them away. For the full fraud ecosystem argument, see our Web3 growth guide and Chainalysis’s crypto crime data .

Innovation Cannot Scale Without Sustainable Unit Economics

Second, user acquisition costs must fall to sustainable levels through targeted, intent-based marketing. Web3 has solved the operational cost problem — business process unit costs are already at levels that make the technology structurally superior to traditional finance. However, solving the operational side while leaving acquisition costs at $1,000 per user creates a business model that cannot reach sustainability regardless of how elegant the technology is. Projects in this situation have two options: raise more capital and burn it on mass marketing, or launch a token and use speculation to subsidize acquisition. Neither path leads to the sustainable revenue generation that enables long-term product iteration. As Martin states in his closing remarks: “From one side we have to introduce the AdTech systems which reduce mass-related user acquisition costs. From the other side, we have to create much higher trust in the ecosystem. That’s all the same that happened in Web2. We are not inventing anything new — we are just repeating what Web2 did.” For how ChainAware’s complete platform addresses both requirements simultaneously, see our product guide and our Web3 agentic economy guide.

Comparison Tables

Web3 Mass Marketing vs ChainAware Intent-Based Targeting

AML Tools vs Transaction Monitoring: What Regulators Actually Require

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Magic Square and why did they host this X Space with ChainAware?

Magic Square is a Web3 app store and launchpad that curates and distributes decentralized applications to its community. The X Space series they run brings Web3 projects to their audience for educational conversations about technology, use cases, and ecosystem development. ChainAware’s focus on fraud detection and Web3 AdTech aligned directly with topics relevant to Magic Square’s community of Web3 users and builders — specifically the questions of how to verify project legitimacy and how Web3 projects can find users sustainably.

Why did ChainAware build its own AI models instead of using OpenAI or other LLMs?

ChainAware’s core use cases — fraud detection, rug pull prediction, and behavioral intention calculation — require deterministic numerical outputs trained on structured financial transaction data. LLMs are designed to generate probable text sequences, not to classify future behavioral events from on-chain data with 98% accuracy. Beyond the technical mismatch, building proprietary AI models creates a defensible intellectual property moat. DeFi smart contract code can be forked in hours. A trained neural network with 2+ years of iteration, carefully curated training data, and validated backtesting results cannot be replicated without equivalent investment of time and expertise. This IP moat is one of ChainAware’s core competitive advantages.

How does ChainAware’s wallet verification work without KYC?

ChainAware analyzes only publicly available on-chain transaction data — no personal identity information is required at any point. A user who wants to verify themselves shares their wallet address and cryptographically signs a message proving they control it. ChainAware’s models then analyze the public transaction history of that address and produce a behavioral profile: fraud probability, experience level, risk tolerance, and predicted intentions. The profile proves trustworthiness through demonstrated financial behavior without revealing who the person behind the address is. This maintains the pseudonymity that blockchain users value while enabling the trust signals that counterparties, investors, and platforms need.

What chains does ChainAware currently support, and which are coming next?

At the time of this X Space, fraud detection was live on four chains and rug pull detection was live on two. ChainAware was actively working on full-package integrations for new chains — adding fraud detection, rug pull detection, and behavioral intention calculation together rather than piecemeal. The next chain announced was HAQQ Network (Islamic Coin). The team aims to add a new chain approximately every one to two months, with the goal of delivering the complete product suite on each new chain rather than partial capabilities. For the current chain coverage, see the chainaware.ai platform directly.

Why are Web3 user acquisition costs so high, and how does ChainAware help reduce them?

Web3 user acquisition costs are high because the entire marketing ecosystem operates on mass marketing — sending the same message to everyone regardless of behavioral profile, experience level, or intent. Mass marketing generates impressions but not conversions, because undifferentiated messages do not resonate with the specific needs of diverse user segments. ChainAware calculates each visiting wallet’s behavioral profile from their on-chain transaction history and uses that profile to serve matched, resonating content automatically. The result is that the marketing message reaching a DeFi trader speaks to their trading context, while the message reaching a first-time user speaks to their entry-level needs. Higher relevance produces higher conversion rates, which reduces the effective cost per acquired user — exactly as Google’s AdTech reduced Web2’s acquisition costs from thousands of dollars to tens of dollars.

This article is based on the X Space hosted by Magic Square featuring ChainAware co-founder Martin. Listen to the full recording on X . For integration support or product questions, visit chainaware.ai.

The post Web3 AdTech and Fraud Detection — X Space with Magic Square first appeared on ChainAware.ai.