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 Klink Finance — ChainAware co-founder Martin in conversation with Philip, co-founder of Klink Finance, on AI-driven AdTech for Web3 finance platforms. Listen to the full recording on X

Two Web3 founders with very different perspectives on user acquisition sit down to map the honest state of Web3 marketing. Philip from Klink Finance brings three years of operating a 350,000-member crypto wealth creation platform — real experience running campaigns across Twitter, Telegram, and Discord through the full cycle of channel migration and community building. Martin from ChainAware brings the data layer: behavioral analytics across 18M+ wallets, AI-powered fraud detection at 98% accuracy, and the conviction that Web3 marketing is about to undergo the same AdTech transformation that Web2 underwent in the early 2000s. Their conversation covers the gap between traffic generation and user conversion, the 15x uplift that personalization delivers over mass marketing, why AI agents are not the next evolution of prompt engineering but something structurally different, and why the wallpaper analogy explains what resonating content actually means in practice. Together, they arrive at the same conclusion from different directions: the most important unsolved problem in Web3 growth is not reaching users — it is converting the right users at sustainable cost.

Klink Finance: Building Crypto Wealth Creation from Zero

Philip, co-founder of Klink Finance, opens the conversation with a platform overview that immediately establishes the scale of the Web3 user acquisition challenge from the operator’s perspective. Klink Finance is a crypto wealth creation platform — specifically designed to let anyone start building a crypto portfolio from $0 of personal investment. Rather than requiring users to bring capital, Klink enables participants to earn crypto rewards through completing quests, participating in airdrops, playing games, answering surveys, and engaging with various platform activities. Rewards are distributed in stablecoins (primarily USDT) as well as newly listed tokens and other airdrop opportunities.

Since launch, Klink Finance has grown to over 350,000 community members — accessible through a mobile app, a web app, and a Telegram mini app. That multi-platform presence reflects a deliberate strategic adaptation: Klink has observed firsthand how rapidly Web3 user communities migrate between channels, and has built infrastructure to follow users wherever they concentrate. As Philip explains: “The trends are changing so quickly in the crypto space and also user interest changes rapidly. Over the course of building Clink, we had different channels that worked better or worse over time.” For more on understanding Web3 user behavior patterns, see our behavioral analytics guide.

Web3 Marketing in 2025: 30 Years of Web2 Practice Meets Six Years of Web3 Native

One of the most practically useful observations Philip makes early in the conversation concerns the false dichotomy many Web3 founders hold about their marketing approach. Early in the crypto industry’s history, a significant faction believed that Web3 marketing was fundamentally different from Web2 marketing — that it required entirely new channels, tactics, and frameworks. Experience has proven this view too simple. As Philip puts it: “If you look at how it evolved over the years, it is very much a mixture of strategies that have worked extremely well in the Web2 space and adding things on top that are very much Web3 native.”

The asymmetry of the situation is significant: Web2 marketing has 30 years of accumulated best practices, tested frameworks, conversion rate data, and channel-specific expertise. Web3 marketing has approximately six years as a serious discipline. Rather than rejecting those 30 years, the most effective Web3 marketing operators layer Web3-native elements — wallet behavioral targeting, on-chain audience segmentation, token incentive structures — on top of the proven Web2 foundation. The projects that succeed are those that understand both layers and know which tool applies in which context. For how wallet behavioral data creates a Web3-native targeting layer, see our intention-based marketing guide.

Agility as the Core Marketing Competency

Beyond the hybrid approach, Philip identifies agility as the single most valuable marketing competency for Web3 operators. The speed at which trends, user concentrations, and effective channels shift in the crypto space is dramatically faster than in Web2. A marketing strategy that worked in Q1 may be significantly less effective by Q3 — not because the product changed, but because the ecosystem migrated. The operators who sustain growth are those who monitor channel effectiveness continuously and reallocate resources quickly when the data signals a shift. Rigidity — committing to a single channel because it worked previously — is one of the fastest ways to lose momentum in Web3.

Channel Migration: From Twitter Dominance to the Telegram Ecosystem

Klink Finance’s own channel history provides a concrete illustration of why agility matters. For an extended period after launch, Twitter (now X) was their primary user acquisition channel — leveraging the platform’s dense Web3 community and its culture of crypto discussion, alpha sharing, and community building. That approach worked well. Over the course of 2024, however, Klink’s primary acquisition channel shifted decisively toward Telegram — both the broader Telegram ecosystem and the specific advertising capabilities that Telegram provides to reach its 900+ million monthly active users.

This migration reflects a broader pattern visible across the Web3 industry: community infrastructure has been moving from Discord (which dominated the 2020-2022 era as the go-to community building platform for NFT and DeFi projects) toward Telegram as both a community platform and a distribution channel. Telegram mini apps have created an entirely new product category — lightweight applications running natively within Telegram that can reach users directly inside their primary communication environment. Klink’s Telegram mini app captures this opportunity directly. As Philip explains: “We also launched the Telegram mini app to leverage advertising on Telegram directly. Because you see a lot of migration also where Web3 communities are built up from being only on Discord initially to a lot more reliance on Telegram.” For more on channel strategy and conversion optimisation, see our Web3 marketing guide.

Mass Marketing Generates Traffic. Personalization Converts It.

Martin introduces the structural distinction at the heart of ChainAware’s approach to Web3 marketing — one that Philip quickly validates from Klink’s operational experience. The distinction separates two entirely different problems that most Web3 marketing discussions conflate: traffic generation and user conversion.

Mass marketing — banner ads, KOL campaigns, Telegram ads, Twitter promotions — is reasonably effective at generating traffic to a platform. It brings visitors to the website or application. However, it is almost entirely ineffective at converting those visitors into active, transacting users. The reason is structural: mass marketing sends the same message to everyone, regardless of their behavioral profile, experience level, risk tolerance, or actual intentions. People are different. A DeFi trader who arrives at a borrowing and lending platform has completely different needs, vocabulary familiarity, and conversion triggers than a crypto newcomer who arrived through the same campaign. Sending both of them an identical onboarding experience means neither gets a particularly relevant one. As Martin frames it: “Visitors are coming to your website. Everyone is seeing the same message. People are different. We have to give to people different messages.” For the complete framework on personalized Web3 marketing, see our AI marketing for Web3 guide.

Philip adds an important operational dimension to this framework. Reducing customer acquisition cost is not only about targeting better acquisition channels — it equally requires optimising the conversion from first landing to first transacting action. As he explains: “It’s not only about spending an amount of money and driving users into your platform. Because then you actually enter the next phase of facilitating a very easy onboarding towards the user. The simpler it is to use your product and to convert from first landing into becoming an actual user, the cheaper it will get also to grow your community.” The implication is clear: personalisation is the conversion layer that makes the acquisition spend worthwhile. Without it, the traffic generated by mass marketing leaks out of the funnel before reaching the transacting stage. For how behavioral segmentation enables the conversion layer, see our user segmentation guide.

Know Who Is Landing on Your Platform

ChainAware Web3 Analytics — Free, 2 Lines of Code, Results in 24 Hours

Before you can personalise, you need to know your real users — not the marketing persona you imagined, but the actual behavioral profiles of wallets connecting to your platform today. ChainAware Analytics shows you experience level, risk willingness, intentions (trader, borrower, staker, gamer), and Wallet Rank distribution. Two lines in Google Tag Manager. Results in 24-48 hours. Free.

Get Free Analytics Analytics Guide

The Email Marketing Proof Point: 1% vs 15% — a 15x Conversion Multiplier

Martin introduces a specific data point that quantifies the personalization premium with enough precision to be immediately actionable for any Web3 founder evaluating their marketing strategy. The comparison comes from email marketing — a channel with decades of conversion rate data across millions of campaigns.

Mass email marketing achieves approximately 1% conversion across general audiences — dropping to 0.5% in the crypto sector, where inbox competition from project newsletters, airdrop announcements, and exchange promotions is particularly intense. Personalised email marketing — where message content is generated based on additional data about the recipient from LinkedIn, Twitter history, and behavioral signals — achieves open rates of approximately 15%. That is not a marginal improvement. At 15x the conversion rate of mass email, personalisation fundamentally changes the economics of every marketing investment. As Martin states directly: “Mass email marketing conversion ratio is 1%, in crypto 0.5%. Now if you go personalised, meaning the emails are generated based on additional information available about you via LinkedIn and Twitter, then you get open rates of 15%. And this shows how much personalisation impacts the conversion. 1% versus 15% — that’s 15x.” For the complete conversion framework applied to Web3 platforms, see our high-conversion Web3 marketing guide.

Blockchain Behavioral Data Outperforms LinkedIn and Twitter Signals

The 15x personalization premium in email marketing uses relatively shallow data sources — LinkedIn profile information, Twitter activity patterns, and basic demographic signals. Blockchain behavioral data is structurally richer and more reliable than any of those signals. Every on-chain transaction reflects a deliberate financial decision that cost real money (gas fees) to execute. The resulting behavioral profile captures actual financial behavior, not self-reported professional credentials or social media activity that may be entirely performative. A wallet with a three-year history of leveraged trading on multiple chains tells you far more about that person’s risk profile, experience level, and likely next action than their LinkedIn job title ever could. Consequently, the personalization premium that blockchain-based targeting enables is likely to exceed the 15x email marketing benchmark — because the underlying data quality is higher.

The Onboarding Aha Moment: How Klink Reduced CAC by Optimising the First Reward

Philip provides a concrete case study from Klink Finance’s own growth history that illustrates how onboarding optimisation directly reduces customer acquisition cost — without changing a single marketing channel or campaign budget. The concept centres on what product teams call the “aha moment” — the specific point in a new user’s first experience where they genuinely understand the product’s value, decide they like it, and commit to continued engagement.

For Klink Finance, that aha moment is precisely defined: it is when a new user earns their first crypto reward starting from zero. Not when they register. Not when they download the app. Not when they complete a profile. The specific moment they see their first crypto balance appear — earned without any prior investment — is when they truly understand what Klink is and why it is valuable. As Philip explains: “For us, this key moment of being a Klink community member is when you earn your first crypto rewards starting from zero. Over time we more and more optimise this flow of getting someone to land on the website or application and getting them to earn their first rewards. And the more you understand how to optimise this onboarding flow, that will have a direct impact on your Web3 marketing strategy and the types of users you are targeting.” For how behavioral profiling enables personalised onboarding at scale, see our DeFi onboarding guide.

Personalisation Reduces Onboarding Noise

Philip makes a specific practical observation about personalised onboarding that connects directly to ChainAware’s approach. If a platform builds a single onboarding flow suitable for both complete crypto beginners and experienced DeFi natives, both groups receive significant irrelevant content. The beginner needs education about private keys and basic wallet concepts. The experienced DeFi user finds that same education condescending and time-wasting. As Philip explains: “If you understand they have been in the crypto space for years already, you don’t need to educate them about what a private key is or how to stake tokens. But you can get straight to the point of the key benefits of your specific solution.” ChainAware’s experience level parameter (1–5 scale derived from transaction history) enables exactly this distinction to be made at wallet connection — before the user interacts with any onboarding content at all. For how ChainAware calculates experience levels, see our wallet auditor guide.

The User Journey from CEX to DeFi: 90%, 10%, and Why It Matters

The conversation surfaces a data point that has significant implications for how Web3 platforms should think about their addressable market. Philip observes that Klink Finance’s community sits at the intersection of Web2 and Web3 — serving users who interact with crypto applications but are not necessarily DeFi natives. Martin provides the broader industry context: approximately 90% of crypto users conduct their activity exclusively on centralised exchanges, with only around 10% actively using DeFi wallets and interacting with on-chain protocols.

Rather than viewing this 90/10 split as a limitation, Martin frames it as a predictable stage in a user journey that is directionally clear and commercially important. New crypto users almost universally start on centralised exchanges — the user experience is familiar, the custodial model removes the complexity of key management, and the fiat on-ramps are straightforward. Over time, as users gain experience and confidence, they begin exploring Web3 applications. Typically, they encounter rug pulls or other fraud events on platforms like PancakeSwap or pump.fun, temporarily retreat to centralised exchanges, then return to DeFi with more caution and more knowledge. Eventually, experienced users often exit centralised exchanges entirely. As Martin describes the arc: “It’s like a personal development upon every Web3 user. It was as well my journey. I started on the central exchanges. I don’t want to use central exchanges anymore.” For more on the user journey and how behavioral analytics tracks it, see our Web3 growth guide.

The Commercial Implication: Protect New Entrants or Lose Them Permanently

The user journey analysis has a specific commercial implication that Martin emphasises throughout the conversation: new users who encounter fraud in their first DeFi experiences frequently leave the ecosystem permanently. They do not pause and try again — they associate the entire Web3 space with the negative experience and return to centralised exchanges as their permanent solution. Every fraudulent interaction that drives a new user out is not just a lost transaction — it is a permanently lost ecosystem participant who will never contribute to DeFi liquidity, governance, or growth again. Reducing fraud rates therefore directly expands the addressable market for every DeFi platform by keeping new entrants in the ecosystem long enough to become genuine participants. For the full fraud reduction argument, see our fraud detection guide.

Address History as Trust Infrastructure: Your Best Business Card in Web3

Martin introduces an underappreciated use case for on-chain behavioral data that extends beyond fraud detection and marketing personalisation: address history as a trust infrastructure for peer-to-peer and business-to-business interactions in the Web3 ecosystem. The argument is both practical and elegant — blockchain’s combination of transparency and pseudonymity creates a unique opportunity to project verifiable trustworthiness without sacrificing privacy.

In a traditional business context, trust is established through credentials — CVs, references, LinkedIn profiles, company registrations. All of these can be falsified. On-chain transaction history, by contrast, is cryptographically immutable and permanently public. A wallet with a five-year history of sophisticated DeFi interactions, consistent protocol usage, and zero fraud associations tells a more reliable story about its owner than any self-reported credential. Furthermore, the history cannot be retrospectively altered — it stands as a permanent, verifiable record. As Martin explains: “Address history is a way to create trust in the ecosystem. You can stay anonymous but you can still calculate the trust level — how much you can trust other persons. Your address history is my credit score, my business card, my visit card. I don’t need to pretend to be someone — I say that’s my address, look who I am, look at the predictions, look at my behavior. I am who I am.” For the complete Share My Wallet Audit implementation, see our Share My Audit guide.

Your Wallet Is Your Reputation

ChainAware Share My Audit — Your Web3 Business Card

Connect your wallet, sign a message to prove ownership, and generate a shareable link showing your complete behavioral profile: experience level, risk willingness, fraud probability, intentions, and Wallet Rank. Share it with counterparties, partners, or investors. Stay anonymous. Prove trustworthiness. No KYC. No identity disclosure.

Create Your Audit Share My Audit Guide

KOL Accountability: Why Share My Wallet Would Change Everything

The trust infrastructure argument leads Martin to a pointed application: Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) — the influencers who shape investment decisions across the Web3 space — should be required to share their wallet audits alongside their investment calls and project promotions. The logic is direct: if a KOL claims to be an experienced trader who got into a memecoin at a specific early price, their on-chain transaction history either confirms or refutes that claim with cryptographic certainty.

Philip acknowledges the principle but highlights the practical barrier: most KOLs would resist because public wallet history would expose the gap between their public claims and their actual behavior. As Philip explains: “I think that would be beneficial but I also feel like there is still a very big barrier from creators in the economy to start sharing that. Because I personally believe that we would see a lot of false X tweets and Telegram posts of people saying I only bought it at this price, whilst they already got it a lot earlier or even didn’t even buy it but just got paid by projects to present.” The resistance to wallet-based KOL accountability is itself revealing — it confirms the extent to which the current KOL marketing ecosystem relies on unverifiable claims to function. For more on KOL marketing accountability, see our KOL marketing guide.

Address Clustering: Finding One Entity Across Many Wallets

Philip raises a challenge that represents one of the genuine technical limitations of wallet-based behavioral analytics: many sophisticated Web3 users deliberately distribute their activity across multiple wallet addresses — sometimes for privacy reasons, sometimes for tax management, and sometimes simply because different wallets serve different purposes. This multi-wallet behavior limits the completeness of behavioral profiles derived from any single address.

Martin’s response introduces address clustering — a technique that partially addresses this limitation by identifying circular dependencies between addresses that appear unrelated on the surface. Even when a user routes through centralised exchanges between DeFi interactions, or regularly creates fresh wallet addresses to separate their activity, they inevitably leave interaction patterns that connect those addresses: shared funding sources, common counterparties, timing correlations, or token flow patterns that form identifiable clusters. As Martin explains: “Even if you look on the first side that addresses are not interrelated, you will still find the circular dependencies. And then you realise — wow, it’s actually one person behind these addresses. So with the analytics, even if you have centralised exchanges between them, still many things can be calculated, much more than people think.” For more on the analytics capabilities across multi-wallet scenarios, see our blockchain analysis guide.

AI Agents Defined: What Separates Autonomous Agents from Prompt Engineering

As the conversation shifts toward AI agents — the topic Philip explicitly identifies as dominating X and generating enormous community interest — Martin provides one of the clearest definitions of what differentiates a true AI agent from the prompt engineering paradigm that preceded it. The distinction matters because “AI agent” has become one of the most overloaded terms in technology marketing, applied to everything from simple chatbot wrappers to genuinely autonomous systems.

Prompt engineering, which dominated the two years following the emergence of large language models, requires a human at every interaction. A prompt engineer designs clever input sequences that extract useful outputs from an LLM — but that process requires a person to initiate each query, evaluate the response, and decide on the next step. Furthermore, the LLMs available during that period operated on training data that was 18-24 months old, limiting their usefulness for time-sensitive applications. An AI agent, by contrast, removes the human from the loop entirely. It runs autonomously, operates continuously (24/7), learns from feedback loops without human intervention, and processes real-time data rather than static training datasets. As Martin defines it: “AI agent is not the next level of prompt engineering. Prompt engineering still needs a person who is creating the prompt. In the case of an AI agent, it means it’s autonomous, it runs from itself. You don’t need this person. There it’s continuous, it’s 24/7. It’s not like an employee who in the evening goes home. And it’s a continuous self-learning when they integrate the feedback loops.” For the complete AI agent taxonomy applied to Web3, see our Web3 AI agents guide.

How ChainAware Built Agents Without Knowing It

Martin’s account of how ChainAware arrived at its agent architecture is instructive precisely because it was not planned. The team built fraud detection, then rug pull detection, then wallet auditing, then AdTech targeting — each product emerging organically from the previous one. At some point, the combination of real-time behavioral prediction and automated content generation produced a system that ran continuously, learned from results, and required no human intervention per user interaction. That is, by any rigorous definition, an AI agent. As Martin puts it: “We got to the agent without knowing that we built an agent. We just kept building and then we realised other people are calling it AI agents and we were like — oh, we like the name, that’s great.” The organic emergence reflects both the genuineness of ChainAware’s agent architecture and the fact that most legitimate Web3 AI agents were built from solving real problems, not from top-down narrative construction.

Generative AI vs Predictive AI: Two Entirely Different Engines

Before explaining how ChainAware’s marketing agents work, Martin establishes the foundational distinction between the two types of AI that are frequently conflated in Web3 marketing discussions. This distinction is critical because the two types are not interchangeable — they solve different problems with different architectures and different value propositions.

Generative AI — the category that includes ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and most of the AI tools that became mainstream in 2022-2023 — is fundamentally a statistical autocorrelation engine. It processes enormous volumes of text and learns the probabilistic relationships between words, sentences, and concepts. When asked a question, it generates the statistically most probable response given its training data. This makes it extremely capable at content creation, summarisation, translation, and conversational interaction. However, it cannot make deterministic predictions about specific future events from numerical behavioral data, cannot classify fraud with 98% accuracy, and cannot calculate a specific wallet’s likelihood of borrowing in the next 30 days. As Martin explains: “Generative AI is just an autocorrelation engine. It produces the most probable answer based on the data that it has. It doesn’t think, it just gives you statistically the most probable response.” Predictive AI, by contrast, uses supervised learning on labeled behavioral data to classify future states — which wallets will commit fraud, which will borrow, which will trade. For the full generative vs predictive AI analysis, see our generative vs predictive AI guide.

The Marketing Agent in Practice: The Wallpaper Analogy

Having established the distinction between generative and predictive AI, Martin explains how ChainAware’s marketing agents use both in combination to create what he calls a “resonating experience” — a website interaction that feels personally relevant to each visitor without revealing why.

The operational sequence begins at the moment a wallet connects to a platform. If the wallet is entirely new with no transaction history, the platform shows its default messages — the same experience every user receives today. However, as soon as transaction history is available, the agent processes the wallet’s behavioral profile and generates matched content. An NFT collector arriving at a DeFi lending platform sees messages framed around the NFT ecosystem and how lending connects to it. A leverage trader arriving at the same platform sees messages about collateral usage and leveraged position opportunities. Neither visitor has explicitly requested this personalised experience — the agent inferred it from their transaction history and generated the appropriate content automatically. As Martin describes the mechanic: “You get an NFT guy at a borrowing lending platform — the NFT guy sees messages cut for him. You get a trader there — the trader gets messages like you can leverage up, you can use your funds as collateral, you can borrow more and go long trades.” For the detailed marketing agent implementation guide, see our AI marketing guide.

The Wallpaper Analogy: You Like It But You Don’t Know Why

Martin uses a memorable analogy to explain the user experience created by resonating content. Imagine walking into a living room where some guests see blue wallpaper and others see green wallpaper — each person sees the colour they prefer, but nobody explains this or draws attention to it. They simply feel comfortable in the space. Web3 marketing agents create the equivalent effect on a website: each visitor experiences content that resonates with their specific behavioral profile, generating a feeling of relevance and comfort without any explicit personalisation signal. As Martin explains: “Some people see blue wallpapers, other people see green wallpapers — they see a wallpaper what they like. And the same will be on the website. If you’re resonating with someone, you like them, you spend more time there. If you’re not resonating, probably you could have a website where you speak to someone else. It’s about resonance.” For how this resonance mechanism drives conversion, see our Web3 personas guide and our high-conversion guide.

The Transaction Monitoring Agent: Expert-Level Compliance Running 24/7

The second agent Martin describes in detail is the transaction monitoring agent — a fundamentally different use case from the marketing agent but sharing the same architectural characteristics of autonomy, real-time operation, and continuous learning. Where the marketing agent operates at the acquisition and conversion layer, the transaction monitoring agent operates at the compliance and security layer.

The agent’s function is straightforward to describe: it takes a defined set of wallet addresses — the connected users of a Web3 platform — and continuously monitors all of their on-chain transactions across every blockchain it has access to. When behavioral patterns emerge that match the fraud signature library (not just fund flow from blacklisted addresses, but forward-looking behavioral indicators of future fraud), the agent automatically flags the address and sends a notification to the relevant compliance officer via Telegram or the platform’s interface. The compliance officer then decides what action to take — shadow ban, full restriction, or further investigation. As Martin explains: “This agent is continuously, autonomously analyzing all these wallets all the time. If there’s a new transaction — not on your platform, but on any platform — it analyses these transactions and if it sees fraud patterns, it will automatically flag it. Then a compliance officer gets the notification: watch out this address, there’s a probability that something will happen there.” For the full transaction monitoring methodology and regulatory context, see our transaction monitoring guide and our AML and transaction monitoring guide.

Expert-Level Workers at a Fraction of the Cost

Martin frames both agents through an employment analogy that makes their commercial value immediately tangible. Both the marketing agent and the transaction monitoring agent perform work that would otherwise require expert human professionals — senior marketers who understand behavioral segmentation and personalisation strategy, and compliance analysts who monitor transaction activity and identify fraud patterns. Both roles typically cost significant salaries, operate only during business hours, require management overhead, and cannot physically monitor thousands of addresses simultaneously. The agents eliminate all of these constraints: they operate at expert level, run continuously 24/7, require no management beyond initial configuration, and can monitor unlimited addresses in parallel. As Martin puts it: “These are like expert workers who are doing work for you — transaction monitoring agents or marketing agents. Expert-level workers, 24/7.” For how these agents fit into the broader Web3 agentic economy, see our Web3 agentic economy guide.

Deploy Both Agents on Your Platform

ChainAware Growth Agents + Transaction Monitoring — One Integration

Marketing Agent: calculates each wallet’s behavioral profile at connection, generates resonating 1:1 content automatically. Transaction Monitoring Agent: continuously monitors your user address set, flags fraud patterns before damage occurs, alerts compliance via Telegram. Both run 24/7. Both integrate via Google Tag Manager. Both powered by 18M+ Web3 Personas across 8 blockchains.

View Enterprise Plans Get MCP API Access

Amazon, eBay, and the Mechanism Behind Web2 Crossing the Chasm

Martin returns in the conversation’s closing section to the historical parallel that contextualises everything ChainAware builds: the mechanism by which Web2 crossed from 50 million technical early adopters to mainstream adoption affecting hundreds of millions of users and generating trillions of dollars of commerce annually. The crossing the chasm framework, popularised by Geoffrey Moore’s influential book on technology adoption, describes the phenomenon but does not fully explain the mechanism. Martin’s argument is that the mechanism is now identifiable in retrospect and directly applicable to Web3.

Web2 companies in the early 2000s faced the same cost structure Web3 faces today: catastrophically high customer acquisition costs from mass marketing, combined with user trust being eroded by credit card fraud. The crossing of the chasm happened when two specific technologies were deployed at scale. First, AI-based fraud detection — mandated by regulators for payment processors — reduced credit card fraud to the point where consumers felt safe transacting online. Second, and more structurally transformative, was AdTech: Google’s micro-segmentation and intent-based targeting, followed by the adaptive interface infrastructure deployed by Amazon, eBay, and eventually every major Web2 platform. As Martin explains: “If you go on Amazon.com, eBay, everyone is seeing his own version of a website. No two people are seeing the same website. Everything is super personalised, super calculated for you. And people think I can personalise the color — no, no, no. The platform provider personalises it for the visitor so that every visitor is getting the most resonating experience.” For the complete Web2-Web3 parallel analysis, see our ChainAware vs Google Web2 guide and Statista’s internet industry data for AdTech growth figures.

The CAC Reduction That Made Web2 Companies Viable

The reason adaptive interfaces and micro-segmentation mattered commercially was not just better user experience — it was the reduction in customer acquisition cost to levels that made business models viable. When Web2 platforms could target users whose behavioral signals indicated genuine intent to purchase, the conversion rate per dollar of marketing spend increased dramatically. Reaching a user who has already demonstrated relevant purchase intent costs the same advertising dollar as reaching a random mass audience — but the conversion from that targeted reach is ten or twenty times higher. Consequently, the effective CAC dropped from hundreds or thousands of dollars to tens of dollars. That reduction was what made it mathematically possible for Web2 companies to acquire users profitably and, as Philip frames it, “build ventures that can sustain themselves and generate revenue.” Web3 is standing at the equivalent inflection point. For more on the CAC reduction framework for Web3, see our unit costs and AdTech guide and the IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report .

Comparison Tables

Mass Marketing vs Personalized Marketing: The Conversion Economics

Prompt Engineering vs AI Agents: What Actually Changed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Klink Finance and how does it relate to Web3 user acquisition?

Klink Finance is a crypto wealth creation platform that enables users to start building a crypto portfolio from $0 of personal investment by earning crypto rewards through quests, airdrops, games, and surveys. With over 350,000 community members across mobile, web, and Telegram mini app platforms, Klink operates at the exact intersection of Web3 user acquisition and retention where the challenges Martin and Philip discuss are most practically felt. Klink’s experience illustrates both the effectiveness of multi-channel agility (migrating from Twitter to Telegram as community infrastructure shifted) and the importance of onboarding optimisation in reducing effective customer acquisition cost — specifically by identifying and optimising toward the aha moment when a user earns their first crypto reward.

What is the difference between mass Web3 marketing and personalised Web3 marketing?

Mass Web3 marketing sends identical messages to every visitor regardless of their experience level, risk profile, behavioral history, or actual intentions — exactly as Web2 billboard or TV advertising did in the 1990s. Personalised Web3 marketing uses each connecting wallet’s on-chain transaction history to calculate their behavioral profile and generate matched content automatically. The conversion rate difference is substantial: mass email marketing achieves 0.5-1% conversion in crypto, while personalised email marketing achieves approximately 15% — a 15x multiplier. ChainAware’s marketing agents extend this personalisation to the full website experience: each wallet sees different content, messages, and calls-to-action based on their behavioral intentions, without requiring any identity disclosure or cookie tracking.

How do AI marketing agents differ from prompt engineering?

Prompt engineering requires a human to write an input for every query and evaluate every output. AI agents run autonomously without human intervention per interaction. The key distinctions are: autonomy (agents run continuously without a human initiating each step), real-time data (agents process live blockchain data, not 18-24 month old training sets), continuous learning (agents improve performance through feedback loops), and scale (agents can process unlimited parallel interactions simultaneously). ChainAware’s marketing agent, for example, autonomously calculates each connecting wallet’s behavioral profile, generates matched content, and serves it — all without any human involvement beyond the initial configuration.

Why does blockchain transaction history make a better behavioral dataset than Web2 data?

Every blockchain transaction requires a gas fee — a real financial cost that forces deliberate action before execution. This proof-of-work filter ensures that every data point in a wallet’s transaction history represents a genuine, committed financial decision rather than casual browsing or search activity generated at zero cost. By contrast, Google’s behavioral data derives from search queries and page visits that anyone can generate without spending anything. The financial commitment filter embedded in blockchain data produces substantially higher behavioral signal quality, which is why ChainAware achieves 98% fraud prediction accuracy from transaction history alone — an accuracy level that would be significantly harder to achieve from Web2 behavioral proxies.

What is the resonating experience and why does it improve conversion?

A resonating experience is a website interaction where the content, messages, and calls-to-action precisely match what that specific visitor is looking for — without the visitor knowing why it feels relevant. ChainAware’s marketing agents create this by analysing each connecting wallet’s behavioral profile (experience level, risk willingness, intentions) and generating matched content automatically. An NFT collector sees content framed around NFT use cases; a leverage trader sees content about collateral and position management. Neither has explicitly requested this personalisation — the agent inferred it from their transaction history. The commercial result is increased time on site, higher engagement with key actions, and improved conversion from visitor to transacting user. This is the Web3 equivalent of the adaptive interfaces Amazon and eBay built in the early 2000s to drive Web2 adoption.

This article is based on the X Space between ChainAware.ai co-founder Martin and Philip from Klink Finance. Listen to the full recording on X . For integration support or product questions, visit chainaware.ai.

The post AI-Driven AdTech for Web3 Finance Platforms 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.

X Space with ChainGPT and Datai — ChainAware co-founders Martin and Tarmo join Ellie from Datai and ChainGPT Labs host Chris for a wide-ranging conversation on AI agents in Web3: what they actually are, what they can already do, and why they mark the beginning of the biggest innovation wave the industry has ever seen. Listen to the full recording on X

Three projects at the frontier of Web3 AI infrastructure sit down to talk honestly about what is actually being built. ChainAware brings two production-ready AI agents — a fraud detection agent and a Web3 marketing agent — built on proprietary predictive models trained over two years. Datai brings three years of blockchain data aggregation and a smart contract categorization AI that translates raw on-chain transactions into the behavioral language that intelligent agents need to function. ChainGPT Labs, which incubates both, provides the ecosystem context that connects these tools to the broader question every Web3 builder faces: how do you get real users, build sustainable revenue, and focus on the innovation that actually matters? Together, they map out why AI agents are not a hype narrative — they are the infrastructure layer that finally makes Web3 businesses viable.

Three Projects, One Mission: What ChainAware, Datai, and ChainGPT Are Building

ChainGPT Labs brought together two of its incubated projects — ChainAware and Datai — for this X Space precisely because their work is complementary. Both teams identified the same fundamental gap in Web3 infrastructure from different directions, and both arrived at AI agents as the solution. Understanding what each brings to the table clarifies why the combination matters.

ChainAware is a prediction engine. Starting from SmartCredit’s DeFi lending platform, Martin and Tarmo built iteratively: credit scoring required fraud detection, fraud detection extended to rug pull prediction, behavioral modeling followed, and marketing personalization emerged from behavioral data. Today the platform produces real-time behavioral profiles for any wallet address — predicting fraud probability, rug pull risk, experience level, risk tolerance, and future behavioral intentions (borrower, lender, trader, gamer, NFT collector). Two production AI agents sit on top of that infrastructure: the fraud detection agent and the Web3 marketing agent. As Martin explains: “We are a big calculation engine. Not just a calculation engine — we are a prediction engine. We predict what wallets are doing in the future.” For the complete ChainAware architecture, see our product guide.

Datai: Making Blockchain Data Readable for AI

Datai approaches the same problem from the data infrastructure layer. Ellie explains the core challenge: when you look at any blockchain transaction explorer, you see addresses interacting with other addresses. However, you do not see what the user was doing. That address could be connecting to a DeFi lending protocol, minting an NFT, bridging assets between chains, signing a contract, purchasing a gaming asset, or investing in a real-world asset. The transaction looks identical at the address level regardless of which of these activities is occurring. Datai spent three years manually aggregating blockchain data and building categorization for the smart contracts that users interact with — then invested 1.5 years building an AI model that can automatically categorize smart contracts at scale. The result is data that, as Ellie puts it, reads “like English” — structured behavioral context that AI agents can actually understand and act on. For how clean behavioral data enables better AI agent decisions, see our behavioral analytics guide.

What AI Agents Actually Are: Beyond the Hype

The X Space opens with an accessible definition that cuts through the significant volume of AI agent hype circulating in the Web3 space. AI agents are autonomous systems that run continuously, learn from feedback, and execute defined functions without requiring human initiation at each step. They differ from chatbots and simple automations in three specific ways: they operate on real-time data rather than static training sets, they learn continuously from outcomes rather than remaining fixed, and they execute consequential actions (transactions, content generation, risk flags) rather than just producing text responses.

Ellie offers the most accessible definition in the conversation: “Just a friend. Like it’s a robot friend who’s living inside your PC. This robot friend will listen to what you say, what you do, and then it will start telling you things — find my best pictures, find my best song. It can understand a lot of information really quickly. It’s like having a super helper that is always ready.” This analogy captures the operational reality well: an agent that has been configured for a specific task runs in the background, continuously analyzing the information relevant to that task and taking defined actions when conditions are met. No human needs to ask it to start or tell it when to act. For more on how AI agents differ from prompt engineering, see our Web3 AI agents guide.

Why Web3 Is the Ideal Environment for AI Agents

Both Ellie and Martin make a specific structural point about why Web3 enables AI agents more powerfully than Web2. In Web2, building agents is technically simpler because the data is in natural language — tweets, messages, Netflix viewing history, search queries. However, that data is locked behind proprietary APIs, fragmented across closed platforms, and requires individual permission agreements with each company. Web3’s data is structurally different: every transaction is public, every interaction is permanently recorded on open ledgers, and no permission is required to read any of it. The challenge in Web3 is not access — it is interpretation. Raw blockchain data is not readable without smart contract categorization. Once that categorization layer exists (which is what Datai provides), the behavioral signal quality is dramatically superior to anything Web2 has — because every transaction represents a real financial decision with real cost attached. For how this connects to ChainAware’s behavioral prediction models, see our generative vs predictive AI guide.

The Founder Bandwidth Problem: Why 90% of Time Goes to the Wrong Things

One of the most practically resonant arguments in the entire conversation comes from Tarmo’s opening on what AI agents mean for Web3 founders. The observation is simple and verifiable by anyone who has run a startup: the actual innovation a founder set out to build receives a small fraction of their working time. The rest goes to the operational overhead that every business requires — marketing, sales, compliance monitoring, tax reporting, transaction auditing, customer support, legal coordination. None of these activities are the core innovation. All of them are essential. Together, they consume the majority of a founder’s calendar.

Tarmo frames this precisely: “Just imagine when you are doing now a startup. You can spend maybe a real innovation for a small piece of time. The rest of time goes into tax reporting, into marketing, into sales, into transaction monitoring. What AI agents do — they take over all these tasks which you have to do supplementary to the real innovation, so that you can focus on the innovation.” Martin reinforces this with a specific observation about Web3 marketing: most founders end up devoting enormous energy to mass marketing campaigns that produce poor conversion because the personalization infrastructure does not exist yet. Building that infrastructure, running it, and optimizing it manually consumes resources that should be going toward product iteration. For more on how marketing agents specifically address the founder bandwidth problem, see our AI marketing guide and our Web3 agentic economy guide.

The Innovation Multiplier Effect

The second-order argument is even more significant than the immediate bandwidth gain. If AI agents remove the supplementary task burden from every Web3 founder simultaneously, the aggregate increase in innovation output across the entire ecosystem is enormous. Currently, thousands of talented teams spend the majority of their time on activities that provide no competitive differentiation — mass marketing to undifferentiated audiences, manually configuring compliance monitoring, preparing tax reports. All of this effort produces zero innovation. Redirecting even half of that effort toward core product development would compound into a wave of new capability that Martin describes as the biggest the industry has seen: “This will be a massive wave of innovation that is coming. All these supplementary activities — what the founders have to do at the moment — it blocks their time. Take it over with agents. That means focus on innovation, create real innovation.” For how this connects to the broader Web3 growth trajectory, see our AI agents acceleration guide.

Deploy Your First Agent in Minutes

ChainAware Free Analytics — Know Your Real Users in 24 Hours

Before you can personalise content, you need to understand who is actually visiting your platform. ChainAware Analytics gives you the real behavioral distribution of connecting wallets — experience levels, risk profiles, intentions — in 24-48 hours. Two lines of Google Tag Manager code. Free forever. The starting point for every agent deployment.

Get Free Analytics Analytics Guide

The Web3 Marketing Agent: From Mass Messaging to 1:1 Personalization

Marketing was personalized before it became mass. Before broadcast advertising, before mass media, before the internet — merchants knew their customers individually, knew their needs, and tailored their communication accordingly. Mass marketing was an economic compromise: reaching millions of people with identical messages was cheaper per impression than reaching each person with a relevant one, even though conversion rates were dramatically lower. The internet initially intensified mass marketing rather than solving it, because the data layer needed for personalization at scale did not exist yet.

Google changed that equation in Web2 by using search and browsing history to infer behavioral intent and serve matched advertising. Web3 today sits at the same pre-AdTech position that Web2 occupied before Google’s innovation. Every major marketing channel — KOL promotions, crypto media banners, Telegram ads, CMC listings — delivers identical messages to heterogeneous audiences. A DeFi native with five years of sophisticated protocol usage receives the same onboarding content as someone who created their first wallet last week. The conversion rate from this misalignment is predictably terrible. As Martin explains: “What is website’s role? Website’s role is to convert users. Website’s role is to resonate with users. So you have to create personalized websites.” For the full Web3 personalization framework, see our Web3 personalization guide and our intention-based marketing guide.

How the Marketing Agent Works in Practice

ChainAware’s marketing agent operates at the moment a wallet connects to a platform. The sequence is: wallet connects → ChainAware’s behavioral models calculate the wallet’s profile in real time → the agent generates content matched to that profile → the visitor sees messaging that resonates with their specific behavioral type. A high-probability borrower arrives at a lending platform and sees content about borrowing terms and collateral optimization. A leverage trader at the same platform sees content about position management and leverage tools. A first-time DeFi user sees content that addresses their onboarding needs. None of these visitors know that the content was generated for them specifically — they simply experience a platform that feels relevant. As Martin explains: “You calculate the user’s behavior, experience, risk willingness. You calculate who are the future borrowers with probabilities, who are the future lenders, who are the future leverage takers, who are the gamers, who are the NFT collectors. Based on these behavioral parameters, it’s automated targeting.” For the complete marketing agent implementation, see our Web3 personas guide.

From Manual Configuration to Auto-Generation

ChainAware’s banner system — which delivers personalized messages to platform visitors based on behavioral profiles — is already in production with clients. Currently, the system includes a significant manual configuration step: a team member specifies which messages should appear for which behavioral profiles, designs the content variants, and sets the targeting parameters. This manual configuration creates a startup cost for each new client deployment. The next evolution underway is auto-generation: the agent itself generates the content variants based on the behavioral profiles it identifies, requiring only human review rather than human creation. As Martin notes: “We have a lot of manual configuration there. What we are doing now is we are moving from manual configuration to auto generation.” Once auto-generation is complete, deploying the full personalization system requires minimal setup time — and the agent runs continuously from that point without ongoing human involvement.

The Orchestrator Shift: How Marketers Evolve in an AI Agent World

The host Chris, who works in marketing and community management for ChainGPT Labs, asks the question that many marketing professionals privately wonder: do AI agents replace the marketer? The answer from both Ellie and Tarmo is thoughtful and specific — and it reframes the question in a way that is both reassuring and clarifying.

Ellie’s observation is precise: AI agents in Web3 marketing will make the marketer’s work “a bit similar to Web2.” The comparison is apt. In Web2, sophisticated marketers do not write every word of copy, design every visual, or manually A/B test every subject line — they use tools, platforms, and workflows that handle execution while the marketer focuses on strategy, brief writing, and judgment about what is and is not resonating. Web3 marketing currently operates below that level because the data layer and personalization infrastructure do not yet exist. AI agents bring Web3 marketing up to Web2 sophistication, and then push further toward genuine 1:1 personalization that Web2 never fully achieved. For the marketing professional, the transition is from manual execution to strategic orchestration. As Tarmo describes the shift: “You become like an orchestrator. You have highly specialized agents — one agent is preparing nice illustrations which resonate with specific personas, one agent is preparing your texting, one agent is calculating a psychological profile. All you do is orchestrate them.” For more on how this orchestration model works in practice, see our Web3 growth guide.

High-Value Creation vs Low-Value Execution

The practical consequence of the orchestrator shift is a redistribution of human cognitive effort from low-value execution tasks toward high-value creative and strategic work. Currently, a significant portion of any marketing team’s time goes to tasks that require skill to do but that produce no strategic differentiation: writing variations of the same message for different channels, manually segmenting audience lists, resizing images for different ad formats, reporting on campaign performance. These tasks require time and training but not genuine creative judgment. AI agents can execute all of them. What they cannot replace is the judgment about which message strategy actually resonates with a specific community, which product narrative builds genuine trust, and which creative approach communicates a technical value proposition clearly. As Tarmo explains: “We are taken out of these daily operating activities where we spend 90% of our time. Instead we focus on these high, very high value creation activities. We use our creativity, our intellectual power to create something new.” For more on how ChainAware’s agent stack supports this reallocation, see our DeFi onboarding guide.

Datai: The Data Layer That Makes Intelligent Agents Possible

For an AI agent to make intelligent decisions, it needs to understand the context of the data it is acting on. In Web2, context is relatively accessible: user behavior is expressed in natural language — search queries, messages, reviews, social posts. AI systems trained on language can interpret this behavior without additional translation layers. In Web3, the equivalent behavioral data is expressed in a format that is opaque by default: hexadecimal addresses interacting with hexadecimal contracts, with transaction values in token units. None of this raw data tells you what the user was doing in any meaningful behavioral sense.

Datai’s core product solves this interpretation problem. By categorizing the smart contracts that users interact with, Datai transforms raw transaction histories into behavioral narratives. A series of transactions that looks like “0x4f…a2 interacted with 0x7d…c8” becomes “this wallet borrowed USDC on Aave, provided liquidity on Uniswap, bridged to Arbitrum, and purchased a gaming asset on Immutable X.” That translated narrative is what Ellie means by data that reads “like English” — structured, categorized behavioral context that AI agents can process, segment, and act on without requiring custom interpretation for each new protocol or chain. As Ellie explains: “When a user is interacting with a smart contract, there can be a thousand ways of what they’re doing — connecting to a DeFi protocol, interacting with NFT, bridging, signing a contract, maybe buying a gaming asset, investing in real world assets. If you look at the scanner, you see only addresses. But what are those addresses? What is the user doing? This is exactly what we’re trying to solve.” For how ChainAware’s models use behavioral data, see our blockchain analysis guide.

Smart Contract Categorization: Translating Addresses into Behavior

The practical value of smart contract categorization becomes clear when you consider the analytics problem any DApp operator faces. A platform operator knows everything about what users do inside their own protocol — how much liquidity they add, how long they stay, what assets they prefer. However, they know nothing about what those same users do everywhere else on the blockchain. A lending platform does not know whether its users also trade on derivatives protocols, whether they are active NFT collectors, whether they bridge frequently to other chains, or whether they have significant capital sitting idle in other protocols that they might potentially move. All of that behavioral context exists in public blockchain data — it is simply not interpretable without the categorization layer that tells you what each smart contract interaction represents.

Datai’s categorization layer makes this cross-platform behavioral picture available. As Ellie explains: “We can tell you that 10% of your customers are using lending-borrowing platforms on the same chain or on different chains. What assets are they lending and borrowing that you don’t have internally? So you can adjust your product strategy based on the behavior of what your customers are doing outside of the platform.” This external behavioral view is the Web3 equivalent of Google Analytics combined with competitor research — understanding not just what users do on your platform but who they are in the broader behavioral ecosystem. For how ChainAware’s wallet auditor provides a similar behavioral picture for individual wallets, see our wallet auditor guide and our user segmentation guide.

The Fraud Detection Agent: Protecting the Ecosystem, Not Just One Platform

Martin frames ChainAware’s fraud detection agent not as a product that protects individual users, but as ecosystem infrastructure that affects whether Web3 grows at all. The argument connects directly to the new user retention problem: every time a new participant enters Web3 and encounters a rug pull or scam, there is a meaningful probability they leave permanently. They do not distinguish between one bad project and the broader ecosystem — they associate the negative experience with the entire space and return to centralised exchanges or exit crypto altogether. Experienced participants — the OGs Martin refers to — have developed instincts for avoiding the worst situations. But new users have not.

The scale of the fraud problem in DeFi is significant. ChainAware’s data on PancakeSwap pools is striking: 95 to 98% of new pools end in rug pulls. That number means the base rate expectation for a new user exploring DeFi liquidity provision is almost certain loss. No amount of excellent UX or product innovation can overcome a user experience where the majority of initial interactions result in total loss of funds. Reducing that fraud rate — not just for individual users but across the ecosystem — is therefore a prerequisite for Web3 mainstream adoption. As Martin states: “It’s not just for one person, it’s not just for one DApp — it’s for the full ecosystem. If you clean up the ecosystem, we increase the trust, we get much more users, we get much more usage.” For the complete fraud detection methodology, see our fraud detection guide and our fraud detector guide.

Free Tools as Ecosystem Infrastructure

ChainAware’s decision to offer fraud detection and rug pull detection tools free to individual users reflects this ecosystem logic directly. If the goal were purely commercial, these tools would be paywalled to maximize revenue per user. The actual goal, however, is ecosystem trust improvement — which requires maximum adoption. Every user who checks an address before interacting with it, and every user who avoids a rug pull because they checked the pool contract, represents one fewer negative experience that might have driven a new participant out of Web3 permanently. At scale, widespread adoption of free fraud detection tools changes the ecosystem-level new user retention rate. For the free tools, see our fraud detector guide and our rug pull detection guide. For context on crypto fraud scale, see Chainalysis’s annual crypto crime data .

Protect Your Users Before Any Interaction

ChainAware Fraud Detector + Rug Pull Detector — 98% Accuracy, Real-Time, Free

95-98% of new DeFi pools end in rug pulls. 98% of fraud can be predicted before it happens. Enter any wallet address or contract and get a real-time behavioral risk score — backtested on CryptoScamDB. Half a second for standard addresses. Free for every user on ETH, BNB, BASE, and HAQQ.

Check Fraud Risk Free Rug Pull Detector

Transaction Monitoring Agent: The Regulatory Requirement That Protects Everyone

Beyond the individual user tools, ChainAware’s transaction monitoring agent serves a specific regulatory function for platform operators. Under MiCA regulation and FATF recommendations, Virtual Asset Service Providers — which includes most DeFi protocols — must implement both AML analysis and AI-based transaction monitoring. These are not the same thing, and Martin is precise about the distinction throughout the conversation.

AML analysis is a rules-based system that tracks the flow of known-illicit funds through the blockchain. It is inherently backward-looking and static: it can only flag addresses connected to previously identified fraud. Transaction monitoring, by contrast, uses AI to analyze behavioral patterns in real time and predict which currently legitimate-appearing addresses are likely to commit fraud in the future. The operational difference matters because sophisticated fraud operations design their activity specifically to pass AML checks while their behavioral history already contains the patterns that predictive AI identifies. As Martin explains: “Scammers and hackers — it’s a dynamical system. You cannot go with rules against a dynamical system. You need AI to interact with this dynamical system. That’s why you need transaction monitoring.” For the full regulatory context, see our AML and transaction monitoring guide and the FATF virtual assets recommendations .

The Transaction Monitoring Agent in Operation

The operational model for the transaction monitoring agent is straightforward to implement. A platform operator uploads a list of wallet addresses — the connected users of their protocol — ranging from a few hundred to several thousand. The agent monitors all of these addresses continuously across all supported blockchains. When behavioral patterns emerge that match the fraud signature library (patterns that have historically preceded fraudulent activity, even in addresses that have not yet committed visible fraud), the agent flags the address and notifies the relevant compliance contact via Telegram or the platform interface. The compliance officer then makes the decision about what action to take — shadow restriction, investigation, or automated exclusion. The human remains in the decision loop, but the detection and notification happens automatically, continuously, without any ongoing human monitoring effort. For the complete transaction monitoring implementation, see our transaction monitoring guide.

Datai’s Trading Use Case: From Pre-Packaged Strategies to Personalized AI Agents

Ellie’s description of Datai’s trading AI agent use case traces a clear evolutionary arc in how DeFi users interact with complex financial strategies. DeFi began as a series of raw protocol interactions — users manually navigating Aave, Uniswap, Compound, and other protocols to construct their own yield strategies. In 2020, platforms began packaging these interactions into pre-built strategies: users could select from a menu of two to ten defined approaches, each representing a different combination of protocols, assets, and risk parameters. This was an improvement, but it created a different problem: the strategies were designed for generic user profiles, not for individual behavioral histories.

A user who primarily trades stable pairs and never touches leveraged positions faces the same menu of strategies as a user who actively manages high-risk leveraged portfolios across multiple chains. Neither user gets a strategy actually calibrated to their risk tolerance, behavioral history, or current asset holdings. The AI agent approach changes this entirely. As Ellie describes: “Wallet providers are developing agents that will go and analyze all your trading history — did you trade meme coins, stablecoins, add liquidity, borrow, leverage yourself? Based off this deep understanding, they create strategies that are fit to the user’s behavior.” The agent additionally considers what other users with similar behavioral profiles have done — a peer comparison layer that makes the recommendation more robust than individual history alone. For more on how behavioral profiling enables this personalization, see our behavioral analytics guide.

The Pool Comparison Product: A Practical Agent Application

Ellie shares a concrete product example that illustrates how data infrastructure enables AI agent functionality. Datai built an internal tool that tracks a single liquidity pool (for example, ETH/USDT) across all major protocols — Uniswap, Sushiswap, PancakeSwap, and others — comparing APY performance, liquidity depth, and security parameters simultaneously. A crypto fund initially used this to track their own portfolio performance. Then an external company building a trading AI agent contacted Datai to integrate this data: the agent needed to know which version of a given pool across which protocol and chain offered the best combination of yield and security at any given moment, then use bridging to route the user’s capital to the optimal destination automatically. As Ellie explains: “You want to invest in the same pool. You have maybe 100 possibilities. AI agents are built to help you better guide your choices. You just say: I want to add ETH/USDT to a pool. I don’t care if I’m on Ethereum or Base. It’s funneled to the right chain and the protocol with acceptable liquidity and highest APY.” For a parallel example using ChainAware’s Prediction MCP for agent decision-making, see our Prediction MCP guide.

The Web2 Parallel: Two Technologies That Drove the Crossing of the Chasm

Both ChainAware and Datai converge on the same historical framework for understanding Web3’s current position. The Web2 internet went through an identical phase before mainstream adoption: a technically sophisticated early-adopter community, significant innovation in business process efficiency, but brutal user acquisition costs driven by mass marketing and a persistent trust problem driven by widespread fraud. Web2 crossed from niche to mainstream through two specific technological interventions — and both Martin and Ellie name them explicitly.

The first was fraud detection. Credit card fraud was so pervasive in Web2’s early commercial phase that consumer reluctance to transact online constrained the entire e-commerce sector. Web2 companies collectively spent enormous development resources fighting fraud before they could focus on growth. The solution was transaction monitoring systems — mandated by financial regulators for payment processors, implemented in AI-based real-time pattern detection. Once fraud rates dropped, consumer trust increased and new users stopped burning their fingers and leaving. Ellie frames this directly: “Web2 became real. Web2, before what we know now, developed two very important technologies. One of them was fraud detection. It was fighting of credit card fraud.” For the complete historical parallel, see our ChainAware vs Google Web2 guide.

AdTech: The Second Technology That Made Web2 Viable

The second technology was AdTech. Before Google’s innovation, Web2 marketing was mass marketing — banner ads, email blasts, and press releases that reached everyone identically regardless of intent. Customer acquisition costs were prohibitively high because undifferentiated messages produced low conversion rates. Google used search history and browsing behavior as a proxy for intent, combined micro-segmentation with targeted delivery, and reduced customer acquisition costs from thousands of dollars to tens of dollars. Twitter, Facebook, and every major Web2 platform followed with their own behavioral targeting systems. The business models that power the modern internet — $600+ billion annually in digital advertising — exist because AdTech made user acquisition economically viable. As Ellie summarises: “The second crucial technology that Web2 had before it became mainstream was AdTech. Web2 used AdTech to match in an invisible way buyers and sellers. These were two key technologies which were the basis of our current Web2 world.” For AdTech scale data, see Statista’s Google advertising revenue data . For how ChainAware replaces Google’s role in Web3, see our Web3 AdTech unit costs guide.

Web3 Is at the Same Inflection Point

Web3 today mirrors Web2 at the pre-chasm moment almost exactly. There is a sophisticated early-adopter community, significant innovation in business process automation (unit costs of financial operations have fallen dramatically), persistent fraud that drives new users away, and catastrophic user acquisition costs driven by mass marketing that does not convert. The two solutions that worked in Web2 — AI-based fraud detection and behavioral targeting AdTech — are now available for Web3 in a form that is structurally superior to what Web2 had, because blockchain transaction data carries higher behavioral signal quality than search history. As Martin concludes: “It happened because the fraud was taken down in the ecosystem. And from the other side, the crossing was introduced by Google. Google was the innovator. Now we are in Web3, exactly in the same situation as Web2 once was. How do we cross the chasm? Reduce fraud. Bring in personalized AdTech.” For more on how this two-part solution maps to ChainAware’s product roadmap, see our Web3 growth guide and Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm framework .

The Coming Innovation Wave: What Happens When Founders Get Their Time Back

The conversation closes with both Martin and Tarmo making a forward-looking argument that goes beyond the near-term benefits of individual AI agent deployments. The second-order effect of AI agents removing supplementary task burdens from every Web3 founder simultaneously is not incremental improvement — it is a step-change in the industry’s aggregate innovation capacity.

Currently, the Web3 ecosystem contains thousands of technically capable teams building genuinely novel infrastructure. Most of them spend the majority of their working time on activities that require skill but produce no differentiation — the same mass marketing campaigns, the same compliance monitoring procedures, the same administrative overhead. When AI agents absorb those tasks, the collective human creative capacity that was previously consumed by execution gets redirected toward product ideation, architectural decisions, and genuine innovation. Tarmo’s framing is direct: “With AI agents in marketing, AI agents in trust systems and fraud detection, we can bring the entire Web3 ecosystem to a new level.” This is not a marginal improvement to existing trajectories — it is a qualitative shift in what Web3 can produce. For context on the AI agent economy’s growth trajectory, see the Grand View Research AI agents market report and our real AI use cases guide.

Deploy the Full Agent Stack

ChainAware Prediction MCP — 18M+ Personas, 8 Blockchains, 32 Open-Source Agents

Every ChainAware capability — fraud detection (98%), rug pull prediction, behavioral profiling, marketing personalization, transaction monitoring — accessible via a single Prediction MCP. Any AI agent queries it in natural language and gets real-time behavioral predictions. 32 MIT-licensed agents on GitHub. SSE-based integration in minutes.

Get MCP Access View 32 Agents on GitHub

Comparison Tables

ChainAware vs Datai: Complementary AI Agent Infrastructure Layers

Pre-Packaged DeFi Strategies vs AI Agent Personalized Strategies

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ChainGPT Labs and why did it incubate both ChainAware and Datai?

ChainGPT Labs is the incubation and investment arm of ChainGPT, a blockchain-focused AI platform and IDO launchpad. The incubation thesis focuses on projects building real AI infrastructure for Web3 — specifically those with proprietary technology, genuine use cases, and measurable product traction rather than narrative-driven projects. Both ChainAware and Datai fit this thesis: ChainAware with its proprietary predictive AI models (fraud detection, rug pull prediction, behavioral profiling) and Datai with its three-year smart contract categorization dataset and AI model. The X Space brought both together specifically because their capabilities are complementary — ChainAware predicts future wallet behavior while Datai provides the historical behavioral context that makes predictions richer and more accurate.

How does ChainAware’s marketing agent protect user privacy?

ChainAware’s marketing agent operates exclusively on publicly available on-chain transaction data. No personal identity information is required at any point. When a wallet connects to a platform, the agent calculates a behavioral profile from that wallet’s public transaction history — experience level, risk tolerance, intentions — and generates matched content accordingly. The user remains fully anonymous throughout: the agent knows behavioral patterns but not personal identity. This means the personalized experience is delivered without any KYC process, without cookie tracking, and without any data that could identify the individual behind the address. As Martin notes in the conversation: “Anonymity is still there, but we know the behavior of a person behind this address.”

What problem does Datai solve that wallet analytics tools do not?

Standard wallet analytics tools show you what transactions a wallet executed — the addresses it interacted with, the values transferred, the timing. They do not tell you what the wallet was doing in any behavioral sense. A wallet that interacted with 0x4f…a2 could have been borrowing USDC, providing liquidity, bridging ETH, or purchasing an NFT — the address looks identical in all cases. Datai’s smart contract categorization layer solves this interpretation problem by mapping every smart contract address to its functional category and behavioral context. The result is that wallet transaction histories become readable behavioral narratives: “this user borrowed on Aave, traded on Uniswap, bridged to Arbitrum, and purchased a gaming asset” — context that AI agents can act on meaningfully.

Will AI agents replace Web3 marketing professionals?

The consensus from both ChainAware and Datai is no — but the role changes significantly. AI agents take over execution tasks: generating content variants, segmenting audiences by behavioral profile, serving personalized messages, monitoring campaign performance, and optimizing targeting parameters. What they do not replace is strategic judgment: deciding which product narrative builds genuine community trust, identifying which behavioral segments represent the highest-value users, designing the creative brief that agents execute from, and evaluating whether the overall strategy is achieving its goals. The marketer becomes an orchestrator of specialized agents rather than a manual executor — which is, as Ellie notes, similar to how sophisticated Web2 marketing professionals already work with marketing technology platforms today.

What is the crossing the chasm requirement for Web3 mainstream adoption?

Both ChainAware and Datai identify the same two requirements, directly parallel to what drove Web2’s crossing of the chasm. First, fraud rates must decrease significantly through widespread deployment of AI-based fraud detection — making the ecosystem safe enough for new users to stay and build positive experiences rather than burning their fingers and leaving permanently. Second, user acquisition costs must drop from the current ~$1,000 per transacting DeFi user to something closer to Web2’s $15-30 benchmark — achievable through behavioral targeting AdTech that replaces mass marketing with intent-matched personalization. Both ChainAware’s production agents and Datai’s data infrastructure directly address both requirements. When both are solved simultaneously, the conditions for mainstream adoption are in place — exactly as they were when Web2 deployed transaction monitoring and AdTech in the early 2000s.

This article is based on the X Space hosted by ChainGPT Labs featuring ChainAware co-founders Martin and Tarmo alongside Ellie from Datai. Listen to the full recording on X . For integration support or product questions, visit chainaware.ai.

The post AI Agents in Web3: From Hype to Production Infrastructure — X Space with ChainGPT and Datai first appeared on ChainAware.ai.