Quai Network

Multi-Chain Network

Merged-mined interlinked blockchains combining proof-of-work with proof-of-entropy for high throughput.

Type	Multi-Chain Network
Region	Global
Status	Active
Links	Website

M69 Score

M69 Alignment3.1

Partially aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty3.5

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability2.6

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.8

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

3.8

Stability2x

2.3

Fia Ind & Int2x

4.2

Traction2x

2.6

Sovereignty

3.6

Governance

2.0

Resilience

2.3

Inclusivity

3.2

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Fiat Independence is exemplary (4.2/5.0)Quai Network achieves the highest fiat independence of almost any project -- zero fiat reserves, zero fiat-denominated oracles, energy-based issuance with no debt mechanism. This is the project's strongest M69 alignment signal and a genuine structural advantage that most stablecoins cannot match.

Spending Power Stability is the critical unproven bet (2.2/5.0)The "energy dollar" thesis -- that hash cost naturally tracks purchasing power -- is conceptually interesting but empirically unverified. With QI live for less than a year and no formal price-stability measurement framework, the gap between aspiration and demonstrated stability is the project's largest open question.

Governance is the weakest link (2.0/5.0)The Singularity Fork demonstrated that a small group (Dominant Strategies + Foundation + investors) can fundamentally alter monetary rules without broad community governance. For a project aiming to create century-scale money, this centralization of monetary authority contradicts the M69 vision of technology-enforced rules.

Privacy design stands out as a genuine differentiatorQI's UTXO-based cash-like privacy (fixed denominations, enforced address non-reuse, BIP-47 payment codes) is among the strongest privacy implementations in any stablecoin project, directly aligning with M69's vision of money as a right rather than a surveillance tool.

Traction bottleneck is unit-of-account adoptionDespite 48.5M+ transactions and growing network activity, neither QUAI nor QI is used to price goods or denominate contracts. Until QI breaks out of trading-pair denomination and into real-world pricing, it remains a speculative asset rather than functioning money.

Big takeawayQuai Network is architecturally the most M69-aligned stablecoin attempt to date in terms of fiat independence and debt-free issuance, but its value proposition rests on an unproven stability thesis and centralized governance that could undermine its long-term monetary credibility. The project needs 2-3 years of demonstrated QI price stability and a credible governance decentralization roadmap before its M69 alignment potential can be fully realized.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

Quai Network is a hierarchical Proof-of-Work blockchain protocol featuring a novel dual-token system: QUAI (a logarithmically-emitted store-of-value token) and QI (a linearly-emitted "energy dollar" stablecoin tied to mining difficulty and thus energy costs). The project originated from research at the University of Texas (~2018-2019) by Karl Kreder, Alan Orwick, Sriram Vishwanath, and others, who formed Dominant Strategies as the parent company. Mainnet launched January 29, 2025, with QI mining activated in April 2025. The architecture uses Proof-of-Entropy-Minima (PoEM) consensus across 13 merged-mined chains (1 Prime, 3 Region, 9 Zone), aiming to solve the blockchain trilemma with 50,000+ TPS capacity. From an M69 alignment perspective, Quai Network's strongest suit is its radical fiat independence. Both QUAI and QI are issued entirely through Proof-of-Work mining with zero fiat reserves, zero debt mechanisms, and no fiat-denominated price feeds. The QI token's energy-cost stability mechanism represents a genuinely novel approach: rather than pegging to a fiat currency or commodity basket, QI derives its value from the cost of producing a hash, making it structurally immune to fiat monetary policy. The project also demonstrates strong privacy design for QI through UTXO-based fixed denominations, enforced address non-reuse, and BIP-47 payment codes, delivering cash-like privacy by default. However, significant gaps remain. Governance is highly centralized around Dominant Strategies and the founding team -- the Singularity Fork (which eliminated 81.1% of future genesis unlocks) demonstrated that issuance rules can be fundamentally altered through team-investor agreements without broader community governance. Traction is early-stage: with ~68,000 wallets and no merchant adoption or unit-of-account usage, QI has yet to prove itself as actual money. The spending power stability mechanism, while conceptually interesting, has less than a year of live data and no explicit price-targeting mechanism -- it relies on the theoretical proposition that energy costs provide a stable purchasing power anchor, which is unproven. Resilience scores low because the system has never been tested under adversarial conditions and is highly complex (13 chains, dual tokens, merged mining, SOAP buybacks).

Issuance Model3x

3.8

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Anyone can mine QUAI or QI by running PoW mining software -- no approval, KYC, or whitelist required. Miners choose which token to receive as block rewards. However, mining requires hardware investment (ProgPoW-compatible GPUs). [1][2]	4
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?No debt mechanism whatsoever. Both QUAI and QI are created purely through Proof-of-Work mining -- miners expend energy/compute to produce new tokens. No collateralized lending, no credit lines, no borrowing. QI launched with zero initial supply. [1][2]	5
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Issuance is tied to mining difficulty (energy/compute expenditure), which is a crypto-native signal. While energy cost is a real-world input, it is not a real-economy index like labor output, BCI, or CPI. The link to economic activity is indirect -- hash rate reflects miner participation, not broader economic output. [1][2]	2
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?No hard cap on either token. QUAI has logarithmic emission (increasingly scarce but never capped). QI has linear emission tied to difficulty. The QUAI-QI conversion mechanism and SOAP buyback-and-burn provide contraction. The system is elastic with structural bounds rather than a fixed ceiling. [1][2]	4
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Yes. SOAP mechanism buys QUAI on open market and burns 100% of purchased tokens (~180M annually estimated). QUAI-to-QI conversion reduces QUAI circulating supply. Singularity Fork permanently removed ~1.67B QUAI. Contraction mechanisms exist and are permissionless (conversion) or protocol-controlled (SOAP). [1][2]	4

Spending Power Stability2x

2.3

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?QI's stability derives from its linear emission tied to mining difficulty -- the cost of producing one QI unit reflects the energy cost of a hash. The QUAI-QI conversion mechanism acts as a pressure valve for supply adjustment. This is a reactive mechanism: supply adjusts based on difficulty and miner choice, but it does not target a specific price index. It is algorithmically adjusted based on participation, not price-targeted. [1][2]	3
SPS-02	What basket or benchmark is used to measure spending power?QI references energy/hash cost as a single-asset proxy. While energy is a fundamental input to all economic activity, it is a single commodity reference, not a broad basket. No multi-asset basket, no CPI, no labor index. The implicit claim is that energy cost tracks spending power, but this is a partial signal at best. [1][2]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?Mining difficulty is fully on-chain and verifiable by anyone. However, the methodology for how difficulty maps to "spending power stability" is not formally specified -- there is no published methodology translating hash cost to a purchasing power index. The raw data is transparent but the stability claim lacks formal measurement framework. [1][2]	2
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?QI mining began April 2025 -- less than 1 year of live data. No published track record of stability performance. QUAI token itself has shown extreme volatility (ATH $0.37, ATL $0.018 -- a 91%+ decline). QI's stability has not been tested or measured against any benchmark. [1][2]	1
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?The energy-cost anchor is implicitly a long-term mechanism (energy costs are relatively stable over decades). However, there is no explicit short-term volatility dampening mechanism beyond the conversion arbitrage. The protocol does not formally distinguish between timescales -- the same mechanism (difficulty-based emission + conversion) operates at all timeframes. [1]	2
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?Quai Network is fully permissionless and open to anyone globally. Mining and holding QUAI/QI tokens requires no geographic restrictions, KYC, or special membership. The stability mechanism (energy-cost anchor) functions identically for all participants worldwide. [1][2]	5

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

4.2

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?QI is a fully sovereign unit of account defined by the cost of energy/hash production, completely independent of any fiat currency or state index. QUAI similarly has its own unit defined by logarithmic mining emission. Neither token references USD, EUR, or any fiat denomination in its base design. [1][2]	5
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?Zero fiat or fiat-backed assets. QI is backed entirely by PoW energy expenditure. QUAI has no collateral -- it is a native mined token. The Singularity Fork removed pre-mined tokens but introduced no fiat reserves. SOAP buys QUAI from open market (crypto-native). [1][2]	5
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?No banking relationships required for core protocol operation. Mining, transactions, and conversions are entirely on-chain. Fiat on/off-ramps exist via exchanges (Gate, MEXC, etc.) but are optional and external to the protocol. [1][2]	5
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?The protocol does not use external price feeds or oracles for its core stability mechanism. Mining difficulty is determined internally by the network. QI's value reference (hash cost) is computed on-chain from block times and difficulty targets. No fiat-denominated oracle dependency. [1][2]	5
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?The protocol is structurally immune to fiat collapse. There is no fiat reference in the design. A USD, EUR, or any fiat collapse would have zero direct transmission mechanism to QUAI or QI value. Only indirect effects via general crypto market sentiment. [1]	5
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?Quai was born fiat-independent -- there is no fiat dependency to transition from. The project did not bootstrap with fiat reserves and does not need to reduce fiat exposure. Fiat on-ramps are purely for user convenience, not protocol necessity. [1][2]	5
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?Quai is EVM-compatible, so smart contracts could theoretically implement local currencies. However, no local or sectoral currency composability features are designed into the protocol. No local currencies have been built on Quai. The protocol is not designed as a settlement layer for other monetary systems. [1][2]	2
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?Wormhole NTT integration enables cross-chain transfers for QUAI/QI across 40+ blockchains. Symbiosis Finance and ChangeHero integrations exist. However, these are generic crypto bridges -- no protocol-specific monetary standard for cross-system settlement or exchange rate discovery has been defined. [1][2]	3

Traction2x

2.6

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Fully active, growing, and operational. Mainnet launched January 2025, QI activated April 2025, SOAP launched December 2025, Wormhole integration September 2025. Active development on GitHub with 49 repositories under Dominant Strategies. Regular blog posts and partnership announcements throughout 2025-2026. [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?Research began at University of Texas ~2018-2019. BlockReduce paper published October 2018. Dominant Strategies formed subsequently. Mainnet launched January 2025. Approximately 7 years from research inception, placing it in the 5-10 year bracket. [1][2]	4
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?As of December 2025, approximately 68,000 QUAI wallets exist. Pre-mainnet testnet had 110,000 wallets and 42,000 GPUs mining. Active daily users likely lower than wallet count. Discord community has 204,000+ members. Placing in the 1K-10K active users range based on on-chain wallet activity. [1][2]	2
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?No evidence of merchant acceptance of QUAI or QI for goods and services. The ecosystem includes dApps (Kipper social payments, BlipPay, QuaiSwap DEX) but these are crypto-native applications, not traditional merchant acceptance. QI is not accepted by any known businesses as payment. [1][2]	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?Neither QUAI nor QI is used as a unit of account by any known party. Prices are not denominated in QI or QUAI. The tokens are primarily traded on exchanges priced in USDT. QI's "energy dollar" framing is aspirational -- no contracts, wages, or prices are quoted in QI. [1][2]	1
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?All co-founders (Alan Orwick CEO, Karl Kreder, Sriram Vishwanath, Yanni Georghiades, Jonathan Downing) are actively working on the project. Dominant Strategies continues full-time development. Active public presence with interviews, blog posts, and conference appearances throughout 2025. [1][2]	5
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Documented partnerships include Wormhole (cross-chain), Frictionless Markets (institutional finance), Symbiosis Finance (bridging), ChangeHero (swaps), Jumper Exchange. Investors include Polychain Capital, Alumni Ventures. Academic backing from University of Texas. Approximately 5-8 meaningful partners. [1][2]	3
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Published in IEEE conferences (2019, 2022). PoEM paper on IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive (2023). Messari comprehensive overview report. Coverage in The Block, BusinessWire, Morningstar press. NSF funding in 2019. Significant academic and media attention for a project of its size. [1][2][3]	4
TR-09	Is adoption organic -- not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Adoption is heavily incentive-driven. Testnet incentives (3.7% of supply), mining rewards, SOAP buyback mechanism, and community incentives (23% of initial allocation) all drive participation. PoW mining itself is an incentive structure. Limited evidence of organic demand beyond mining economics. [1][2]	2
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?Strong growth trajectory: mainnet launch (Jan 2025), QI activation (Apr 2025), SOAP mainnet (Oct/Dec 2025), Wormhole integration (Sep 2025), 48.5M+ transactions by Dec 2025, surpassed multiple L1s in daily revenue. Price declined 91% from ATH but network activity grew substantially. [1][2]	4
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?The "first decentralized energy dollar" and "energy-based money" narrative is clear and distinctive. The project has a litepaper, academic papers, and consistent messaging. However, community engagement appears primarily financial/speculative (mining profitability, price speculation). Cultural identity is developing but not deeply rooted beyond crypto economics. [1][2]	3

Sovereignty

3.6

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?As a PoW network with distributed miners across multiple jurisdictions, no single entity can technically shut down Quai. However, Dominant Strategies controls core development and the Singularity Fork demonstrated their ability to fundamentally alter protocol economics. A theoretical shutdown would require coordinating against distributed miners, but a degradation via Dominant Strategies withdrawal is plausible. [1][2]	4
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Fully open-source under Dominant Strategies GitHub. go-quai is the official Go implementation that anyone can compile and run. Mining software, documentation, and SDKs are all publicly available. 49 repositories in the open. [1][2]	5
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Dominant Strategies appears to be a US-based entity (Texas origins). The founding team is primarily US-based. While the mining network is globally distributed, the legal entity and development team are concentrated in one jurisdiction. Regulatory action in the US could materially impact the project's leadership. [1][2]	3
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?Fully non-custodial. Users run their own wallets and hold their own keys. QI uses a UTXO model where users control their own unspent outputs. QUAI uses EVM-compatible accounts. No intermediary at any point for basic operations. [1][2]	5
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Five co-founders distribute knowledge, but Dominant Strategies as a company is central. The Singularity Fork required agreement from Dominant Strategies, the Foundation, and investors -- indicating concentrated decision-making power. Open-source code helps but operational knowledge is still concentrated. [1][2]	3
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Quai runs its own L1 blockchain, so no dependency on Ethereum, Solana, or any other chain for core operations. Wormhole integration is for optional bridging. Mining uses ProgPoW algorithm. Meaningful dependency on general internet infrastructure and the broader crypto ecosystem (exchanges for liquidity), but these have alternatives. [1][2]	3
SO-07	Can the project be censored -- can specific users or transactions be blocked?No blacklist, freeze, or filtering capability exists in the core protocol. PoW mining is permissionless. QI's UTXO model with privacy features makes censorship technically difficult. Front-end services could be censored but are replaceable. The braided multi-chain architecture adds censorship resistance. [1][2]	4
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?QI provides strong privacy: fixed denominations (16 types), enforced address non-reuse, BIP-47 payment codes, and incentivized cooperative reaggregation create cash-like privacy by default. Not full zero-knowledge (no ZK-proofs) but significantly stronger than standard blockchain pseudonymity. QUAI (EVM side) has standard pseudonymous privacy. Cross-token swaps are transparent. [1]	4
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?Emission curves (logarithmic for QUAI, linear for QI) are encoded in go-quai code. Difficulty adjustment is algorithmic. However, the Singularity Fork (Dec 2025) demonstrated that monetary rules can be fundamentally altered via hard fork -- 81.1% of future genesis unlocks were eliminated. SOAP was added post-launch. Code is open-source but governance can override via forks. Some critical parameters changeable by core team with public logging but without mandatory delay. [1][2]	3

Governance

2.0

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Decisions are made by the Dominant Strategies core team. No formalized governance process exists. The Singularity Fork was decided through a "multilateral agreement" between Dominant Strategies, the Quai Foundation, and investors -- not through any public governance process. DAO Ships platform exists on testnet but is not the primary decision-making mechanism. [1][2]	2
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Decision power is held by Dominant Strategies (the parent company), the Quai Foundation, and major investors (Polychain Capital, etc.). No on-chain token voting mechanism is active for governance decisions. The community can participate in mining and discussions but has no binding decision-making power. [1][2]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process -- and the monetary mechanism itself -- transparent and publicly auditable?The monetary mechanism code is open-source on GitHub (go-quai). Anyone can audit emission curves and difficulty adjustment. Block rewards and conversions are on-chain. However, governance deliberation happens behind closed doors. The Singularity Fork agreement was announced post-facto, not deliberated publicly. Monetary mechanism is open; governance process is opaque. [1][2]	3
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Governance is effectively already controlled by insiders -- Dominant Strategies and major investors coordinated the Singularity Fork. No on-chain governance mechanisms exist to prevent capture. The team's control over the codebase and network upgrades means capture resistance is minimal. [1][2]	2
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?Upgrades are developed by Dominant Strategies and deployed via hard forks. The Singularity Fork and SOAP activation were announced via blog posts before implementation. Community can comment but has no binding power. No formal proposal process, no on-chain voting, no time-lock mechanism. [1][2]	2
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No governance structure exists, let alone a separation between monetary and operational governance. All decisions are made by the same entity (Dominant Strategies / Quai Foundation) through the same informal process. The Singularity Fork changed both monetary parameters and operational mechanisms in a single action. [1]	1
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?The litepaper and documentation articulate a vision ("energy-based money," "decentralized energy dollar") but these are not formally protected from governance override. No on-chain constitution exists. The vision is stated in marketing materials but has no binding force -- as demonstrated by the Singularity Fork altering fundamental tokenomics. [1][2]	2
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?The Singularity Fork proved issuance rules can be fundamentally changed: ~1.67B QUAI (81.1% of future genesis unlocks) were permanently eliminated through an agreement between Dominant Strategies, Foundation, and investors. SOAP was added post-launch. No special governance protection exists for monetary policy versus other changes. Issuance rules are upgradeable by a small group with limited community input. [1][2]	2

Resilience

2.3

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?Mainnet launched January 2025. As of April 2026, the network has been live for approximately 14 months. No major crisis, exploit attempt, regulatory attack, or economic stress event has been documented. QUAI price declined 91% from ATH but this was market-driven, not a protocol failure. The system has not been battle-tested under adversarial conditions. [1][2]	1
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?The hierarchical 13-chain architecture (1 Prime, 3 Region, 9 Zone) provides structural redundancy. Merged mining means miners secure multiple chains simultaneously. Open-source code means anyone can run nodes. However, front-end, documentation, and development infrastructure may have single points of failure through Dominant Strategies. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Open-source code (go-quai on GitHub), public blockchain state, and distributed mining infrastructure mean any competent team could rebuild. The 13-chain architecture means a zone failure does not affect other zones. Documentation exists. Not formally tested but structurally recoverable. [1][2]	4
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?High complexity: 13 interoperable chains, dual-token system with different ledger models (EVM + UTXO), merged mining across hierarchical structure, PoEM consensus, QUAI-QI conversion mechanism, SOAP buyback-and-burn, rolling difficulty adjustment. Few people likely fully understand all components. Requires significant domain expertise. [1][2]	2
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on its own L1 using ProgPoW (ASIC-resistant, GPU-friendly). The Go implementation and EVM compatibility tie it to well-supported stacks. However, ProgPoW is a niche mining algorithm and the hierarchical multi-chain architecture is unique. Migration to a different consensus or architecture would require fundamental redesign. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?The QUAI-QI conversion mechanism is designed to handle demand shifts by allowing rapid supply adjustment. SOAP provides a continuous buy-and-burn mechanism. However, these have not been tested under actual economic stress. No formal stress testing results published. Energy-cost anchoring could theoretically help during inflation, but this is untested. The system is designed for stress but has no live track record. [1][2]	2
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Raised ~$10M+ in VC funding (Polychain Capital $8M, Alumni Ventures $2M, additional rounds). SOAP mechanism provides protocol revenue through merge-mining rewards converted to QUAI buybacks. Foundation holds 33% of genesis allocation with 66-month vesting. Estimated runway of 1-3 years at current stage, with SOAP providing ongoing revenue potential. [1][2][3]	3
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?The hierarchical architecture with zone chains could theoretically handle network partitions -- zones operate somewhat independently. PoW consensus is inherently latency-tolerant (miners can work asynchronously). However, the merged mining model across 13 chains assumes reasonable global connectivity. Could be adapted for high-latency but would require architectural changes. [1][2]	3
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?EVM-compatible smart contracts allow AI agents to interact via standard interfaces. QI's UTXO model is programmable. No human-specific requirements (no CAPTCHA, no KYC) for core monetary functions. Protocol was not specifically designed for machine participants but is compatible through existing crypto infrastructure. [1][2]	3

Inclusivity

3.2

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Open to anyone in principle -- no KYC, no nationality restriction, no minimum balance, no credit check. Practical barriers exist: requires internet access, computing device, and for mining, GPU hardware. For transacting, only a wallet is needed. No intentional gatekeeping. [1][2]	4
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?To transact: wallet software is free, and Quai aims for low transaction fees. To mine: requires GPU hardware (significant upfront cost). To acquire tokens: can purchase on exchanges. Transaction fees are designed to be low across the 9 zone chains. Moderate cost overall due to mining hardware requirements for full participation. [1][2]	3
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?Not specifically designed for underbanked populations. The PoW mining model favors those with access to cheap electricity and GPU hardware. No specific outreach, features, or documentation targeting financially excluded communities. Accessible in theory but not in practice for most underbanked users. [1][2]	2
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits -- including seigniorage -- broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Genesis allocation concentrated among insiders: Foundation 33%, Team 16%, Investors 14%, Development Company 6% = 69% to insiders. Community Incentives 23% and Testnet 5% go broader. Mining seigniorage goes to miners (merit-based but favors those with capital for hardware). SOAP burns benefit all holders. The Singularity Fork reduced insider unlocks by 81.1%, partially mitigating concentration. [1][2]	2
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?Equal mining rules for all participants -- anyone running ProgPoW gets the same per-hash reward. No tiered access, no preferential rates for insiders in the mining protocol. However, genesis allocation created structural inequality (insiders received tokens at zero cost while others must mine or buy). Core protocol rules are equal but starting positions are not. [1][2]	3
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?No identity requirement whatsoever. Mining, transacting, and converting are fully pseudonymous. QI provides enhanced privacy beyond standard pseudonymity with cash-like privacy features. No data collection beyond what is publicly on-chain. No KYC for core protocol participation. [1][2]	5
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?No anti-concentration mechanisms. Mining rewards are proportional to hash power, which favors those with more capital for hardware. SOAP burns benefit all holders proportionally. No demurrage, no progressive fees, no UBI-like issuance. PoW inherently rewards capital investment. However, the dual-token system and QI's linear emission prevent some forms of deflationary hoarding. [1][2]	2

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Quai Network and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Quai Network?

Anyone can mine QUAI or QI by running PoW mining software -- no approval, KYC, or whitelist required. Miners choose which token to receive as block rewards. However, mining requires hardware investment (ProgPoW-compatible GPUs).

How does Quai Network maintain stable spending power?

QI's stability derives from its linear emission tied to mining difficulty -- the cost of producing one QI unit reflects the energy cost of a hash. The QUAI-QI conversion mechanism acts as a pressure valve for supply adjustment. This is a reactive mechanism: supply adjusts based on difficulty and miner choice, but it does not target a specific price index.

Is Quai Network independent from fiat currencies?

QI is a fully sovereign unit of account defined by the cost of energy/hash production, completely independent of any fiat currency or state index. QUAI similarly has its own unit defined by logarithmic mining emission. Neither token references USD, EUR, or any fiat denomination in its base design.

Who controls Quai Network and can it be shut down?

As a PoW network with distributed miners across multiple jurisdictions, no single entity can technically shut down Quai. However, Dominant Strategies controls core development and the Singularity Fork demonstrated their ability to fundamentally alter protocol economics. A theoretical shutdown would require coordinating against distributed miners, but a degradation via Dominant Strategies withdrawal is plausible.

How widely adopted is Quai Network today?

As of December 2025, approximately 68,000 QUAI wallets exist. Pre-mainnet testnet had 110,000 wallets and 42,000 GPUs mining. Active daily users likely lower than wallet count.

Is Quai Network still active and growing?

Fully active, growing, and operational. Mainnet launched January 2025, QI activated April 2025, SOAP launched December 2025, Wormhole integration September 2025. Active development on GitHub with 49 repositories under Dominant Strategies.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Quai Network?

Governance is the weakest link (2.0/5.0): The Singularity Fork demonstrated that a small group (Dominant Strategies + Foundation + investors) can fundamentally alter monetary rules without broad community governance. For a project aiming to create century-scale money, this centralization of monetary authority contradicts the M69 vision of technology-enforced rules.

What makes Quai Network unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Fiat Independence (4.2).

How is Quai Network's M69 Score calculated?

Quai Network scores 3.1/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 3.5, Civilizational Durability 2.6, Universal Adoption 2.8. Strongest: Fiat Independence (4.2). Weakest: Governance (2.0).