❇️ Neurolanche - Next Steps

Governance Offchain Discussions
1

Since Sota closed the discussion after my last message, I’m reopening this thread to urge the new council to take decisive action based on the fraud Leo has consistently perpetrated through dApp staking. As stated in the Community Council’s guidelines:

“The Council can unregister a dApp from dApp staking if necessary. A 4/5 majority agreement is required for additional scrutiny and consensus.”

It’s easy to mislead people on Twitter with marketing buzzwords and flashy diagrams, especially when most users don’t have the technical expertise to see through the façade. However, for those of us who do, Leo’s claims regarding Nerox AI raise glaring red flags.

If Leo is genuinely building an AI model capable of emotional intelligence, real-time multimodal interaction, and empathetic responses without leveraging state-of-the-art tools like ChatGPT, let alone foundational frameworks from OpenAI, Microsoft, or Hugging Face, then it’s time for him to provide hard evidence. Here’s the challenge:

Key Questions Leo Must Address

  1. Proprietary AI Development

• You’ve claimed to not rely on foundational models like GPT. Can you prove this? What is your custom NLP framework, and how does it work?

• If you’re not using ChatGPT or similar tools, explain why Azure AI Foundry is being name-dropped without providing architectural specifics.

  1. Benchmarks and Performance

• Where are the benchmarks comparing your model’s performance to existing state-of-the-art NLPs?

• Can you provide real-world demos-sources, or are these just mockups made to convince non-technical audiences?

  1. Technical Infrastructure

• What infrastructure are you using for training and inference? GPUs? TPUs? How do you achieve real-time performance for emotional and facial analysis at scale?

• Are you using third-party APIs for transcription, emotion analysis, or face detection? If so, isn’t this just wrapper work being sold as “innovative AI”?

  1. Training Data and Methodology

• What training dataset powered this groundbreaking innovation? Was it proprietary, or did you depend on publicly available datasets?

• How are you addressing bias and fairness in facial and emotional recognition areas notorious for their inherent flaws?

  1. Transparency and Open-Source Contributions

• Why isn’t there a public repository (e.g., GitHub) to validate your claims of innovation? Open collaboration fosters trust.

• Are any components of Nerox AI open-source, or is everything locked away to avoid scrutiny?

Fraudulent Patterns in dApp Staking

Beyond the technical questions, let’s not forget the core issue here: Leo’s dApp staking activities have consistently demonstrated manipulative practices designed to extract funds without delivering tangible value. His Twitter posts serve as distractions, yet they fail to address the lack of transparency, accountability, and measurable results in his projects.

The council must act swiftly to protect the ecosystem from further exploitation. Leo’s refusal to answer these questions previously speaks volumes about his intentions. If his claims cannot stand up to scrutiny now, it’s the council’s responsibility to unregister his dApp from staking and uphold the integrity of the platform.

Transparency isn’t optional, it’s essential. We demand answers, not more marketing fluff.

Happy New Year 2025!

5 Likes
2

Thanks for raising questions to the team - community needs to be proactive in our ecosystem.

IMO using and replicating technologies is not necessarily an issue, most part of DEXs and DeFi products are forks of Uniswap or PancakeSwap that simply migrate to different chains. In the end, if the product has users and brings value, it is legitimate (though perhaps not entirely original).

Let’s recall that we have memecoins listed in dApp staking (approved through community voting), meaning that almost everything has been allowed so far—as long as it brings value to the ecosystem in some type of way.

Also, the following topics are likely to be of interest to the community:

  • Benchmarks and Performance
  • Technical Infrastructure
  • Transparency and Open-Source Contributions
  • Transparency, Accountability, and Measurable Results

@Leo is a great contributor in our ecosystem and I believe he might be able to answer your questions properly soon.

3

It’s great to see community members, including ambassadors, engaging in discussions to protect our ecosystem. However, when defending a project or individual, it’s important to base arguments on facts, not vague comparisons or assumptions. Let’s break this down piece by piece:

Forking and Innovation

You mentioned that forking technologies like Uniswap or PancakeSwap isn’t an issue, and I agree when done transparently and with actual added value. However, your comparison lacks nuance and understanding of what forking entails:

  1. Forking Isn’t Copy-Pasting:

Forking a project like Uniswap or PancakeSwap is not simply duplicating a GitHub repository and rebranding it. To fork a protocol and migrate it to a new chain, developers must:

• Modify the smart contracts to ensure compatibility with the target chain (e.g., Ethereum to BSC or another chain).

• Optimize transaction handling, gas fees, and user interfaces for the new environment.

• Build infrastructure to support liquidity pools, staking mechanisms, and governance.

• Ensure security through rigorous testing and auditing to avoid vulnerabilities like reentrancy attacks.

• Maintain long-term development and updates to adapt to ecosystem changes.

Forking is a starting point, not an endpoint, and successful forks distinguish themselves by introducing meaningful improvements or customizations.

  1. PancakeSwap’s Contribution:

PancakeSwap may have started as a fork of Uniswap, but it innovated significantly:

• Lower fees due to Binance Smart Chain’s structure.

• Gamification features like lotteries and NFTs.

• Community governance tokens with unique mechanisms.

Now compare this to what Leo is claiming with Nerox AI: there’s no transparency about what was forked or what innovations were made, if any. His work appears to rely heavily on repackaging existing technologies without contributing anything original or transparent.

Memecoins in Staking: A False Comparison

You also mentioned memecoins being listed in dApp staking as if that justifies Nerox AI’s inclusion. This comparison is not only irrelevant but misleading:

  1. Memecoins and Community Demand:

Memecoins are speculative assets, but their inclusion in staking reflects community demand and clear, measurable value (e.g., liquidity, active trading). While they may not be innovative, their success is directly tied to user interest.

  1. Projects and Accountability:

Unlike memecoins, Projects in dApp staking are expected to provide functional utility and contribute to the ecosystem’s growth. Nerox AI’s claims of innovation and utility remain unproven, and Leo has repeatedly dodged transparency, accountability, and technical scrutiny.

Misplaced Defense of Leo

You called Leo a “great contributor,” yet he’s consistently failed to address key concerns about Nerox AI:

• Where is the proof of innovation?

• Why hasn’t he disclosed the model architecture, dataset, or training methodology for his alleged proprietary AI?

• What measurable value has Nerox AI brought to the ecosystem?

Blindly defending someone without understanding the technical or ethical implications of their actions undermines the credibility of ambassadors and the ecosystem as a whole. As an ambassador, your role should be to advocate for transparency and fairness, not to excuse questionable practices with weak analogies.

The Real Issue: Lack of Transparency

Leo’s unwillingness to address these questions head-on speaks volumes. If Nerox AI is truly as innovative as he claims, he should have no problem providing:

• Benchmarks comparing its performance to industry standards.

• Technical documentation outlining its architecture and infrastructure.

• Evidence of how it contributes to the ecosystem beyond marketing buzzwords.

Ambassadors like you have a responsibility to protect the community, not enable those who might exploit it. Before defending Leo, I suggest conducting deeper research into the situation and the technical requirements of what he claims to have built. Simply repeating his talking points without verification does a disservice to the very ecosystem you’re supposed to represent.

In conclusion, this isn’t about opinions, it’s about facts. The new council must prioritize transparency, integrity, and accountability, and until Leo provides hard evidence of his claims, Nerox AI should be scrutinized accordingly.

4

If you are building on existing technology and creating something new as a Fork from it, I think that is a wonderful technological advancement. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

However, if they are just putting a blinkered skin on an existing technology and touting it as a brand new technology that they have developed and are getting support from the ecosystem, that is a crime against the ecosystem.

Note that I do not have a firm opinion at this time as to which case Neurolanche corresponds to. I would need to do some deeper research to be certain myself.

5

Hi!

I have been selected to be part of the ‘Community Council’, I’m currently still waiting on the next steps. Seems it will be starting after the holidays.

Meanwhile, I would like to ask @Leo to check above questions and answer them. It seems a lot has been fragmentated across different threads so I might be good to use this one as source of truth?

3 Likes
6

The points and doubts raised are valid and until you have a clear answer from Leo it will be difficult to understand and express your opinion. At this time like many others I would prefer to wait for a response from Leo.

2 Likes
7

I’ve been in the AI sector for 15 years, and I can tell you that once this issue is solved, if it even gets solved, there will be plenty more to discuss. I have proof to back up what I’m saying, and he better not GPT me. I’m not here for vague answers or empty talk. If Leo can’t address the real concerns with transparency, I’ll make sure the truth is known. There’s no room for any nonsense.

8

From my neutral point of view, @WakeUp 's questions above seem reasonable. And I am also interested in learning them.

4 Likes
9

Hello Sota,

I will respond to the questions above. I hope you will also reply to my offer, which I made about three months ago, to provide you with our GitHub data and arrange testing meetings from the Astar and Neurolanche group. Have a nice day

10

I am happy to do this with external AI experts since I am not an expert.

3 Likes
11

Hello Wakeup,

I will answer all your questions in detail during the daytime. However, I want to emphasize one thing during this process: just as you have been in the AI sector for 15 years, our entire team’s career has been built in this field, and we are currently making academic advancements in this area.

Additionally, up until today, we have always responded to everything transparently and in real time with our community. If you believe that we are contributing to dApp staking, the answer is yes, we are. We were the first team to begin providing transparent reports on Astar.

The assumption that I personally earned millions of dollars in investment solely from Astar dApp staking, as mentioned in the previous forum discussion, is pure nonsense. That being said, I will also answer all your questions about our dApp staking expenditures to date.

Note: Even our community is aware of these facts. Nonetheless, I will address all your questions one last time.

My only request is that you refrain from accusing us with titles like “scammer.” Don’t alienate people who have invested so much into this ecosystem to keep it thriving!

In addition, if you (@sota )haven’t even held a meeting for a year, the issue isn’t a lack of AI knowledge, but rather your own failure to allocate time to engage with the project that holds the largest ASTR dApp staking pool in your ecosystem. I will answer all your questions.

Afterward, I will start asking questions to your team. I hope you will also be able to answer my questions. Make sure you do your homework well.

12

Constructive criticism is cool, but respect is gravity. If you’re asking for answers, you might want to reconsider your tone, don’t bite the hand that feeds you, especially when you’re cashing in from dApp staking.

13

Constructive criticism is good, but respect—yes, that’s above everything else. You’ll earn my genuine respect once you stop swearing from day one. Along with this, you can never confuse my personal wealth with the Neurolanche treasury. Far from earning a dollar from Astar Network, I’ve lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because to support ecosystem. Have a good day. See you in the morning; prepare plenty of questions. I’m eager to answer them all. When it’s my turn to ask questions, I hope you’ll be able to answer them as well.

Best Regards
NL Founder

Ask your all questions. @WakeUp @FFR23 @Logos

Than I am gonna start to ask all of you. :pinching_hand:t3:

15

Hello Wakeup,
I will answer all your questions in detail during the daytime

@Leo you didn’t keep your promise here yet again.

Let’s keep the thread clean of any pointless back and forth since @sota has also expressed an interest in you addressing these points from @WakeUp

3 Likes
16

Hello everyone, and best wishes for a prosperous year ahead!

@wakeup, you’ve raised some excellent technical questions, and like everyone here, I’m eager to hear @Leo responses, as he promised to provide them. That said, I can’t help but express some concern, as these types of questions have been asked before, yet we’ve rarely seen any concrete answers. Hopefully, this time will be different.

In the meantime, while we wait for Leo to address wake’s questions, I propose that we continue the discussion on whether Neurolanche should be delisted from the dApp staking program. To have a productive conversation, we need to evaluate Neurolanche’s project by examining the actual benefits it has brought to the Astar network.

The purpose of the dApp staking program is clear: to incentivize and reward projects that create meaningful value for the Astar ecosystem. It’s a mechanism designed to support builders who drive adoption, generate on-chain activity, and contribute to the long-term growth of the network.

Neurolanche has failed to meet these core criteria. Instead, they have exploited the dApp staking program to amass a significant treasury while delivering nothing of substance to Astar. Continuing to fund such a project through dApp staking is detrimental to the program’s credibility and the health of the ecosystem as a whole.

Below, I’ve outlined a detailed case for why in my opinion Neurolanche should be delisted from the dApp staking program.

1. Neurolanche Has Provided No On-Chain Value, Tangible Support, or Innovation to the Ecosystem

The purpose of dApp staking is to reward projects that generate on-chain transactions, contribute to network activity, and provide tangible support to the ecosystem. Neurolanche has failed to meet these fundamental criteria, delivering no measurable value to Astar.

First, Neurolanche’s products are entirely Web2-based applications with no meaningful blockchain integration. They generate no on-chain transactions, no fees, and no utility for the network. For a project that has been in the dApp staking program for over a year, we should expect to see evidence of on-chain activity, such as:

  • Smart contract deployments
  • On-chain interactions from users
  • Transaction fees paid to the network

However, none of this exists for Neurolanche. Their products remain off-chain tools, and their core offering is essentially a ChatGPT wrapper, repackaged as an “AI-powered tool.” There is nothing innovative or unique about their application, and there is no valid reason why it requires blockchain integration at all. In fact, users can access similar tools for free elsewhere, without the need for any token payments.

Furthermore, despite benefiting from the substantial rewards of the dApp staking program for over a year, Neurolanche has made no effort to reinvest those rewards into the Astar ecosystem. They have not:

  • Funded any new initiatives or projects within Astar
  • Offered grants or partnerships to smaller teams
  • Supported community-driven events or campaigns

In contrast, other projects in the ecosystem have actively worked to support and grow the network. Neurolanche, however, has operated in isolation, focused solely on extracting value from dApp staking without contributing anything of substance in return.

Simply put, Neurolanche has brought no tangible support, no innovation, and no on-chain value to the Astar network. Their continued participation in dApp staking is a drain on resources and damages the credibility of the program.

2. Neurolanche Launched Their Token on Optimism, Not Astar

One of the clearest indicators of a project’s commitment to an ecosystem is where they choose to launch their token. Neurolanche had every opportunity to launch their token, Nerox, on Astar. Instead, they chose to launch on Optimism, a competing ecosystem.

This decision demonstrates that Neurolanche is not committed to Astar. If they truly believed in the long-term success of Astar, they would have launched their token here, providing liquidity and driving adoption within our network. Instead, they pivoted away from Astar to focus on another ecosystem.

This raises a critical question: Why should Astar continue to fund a project through dApp staking when that project has clearly chosen to support a competing network?

Neurolanche’s actions show that they are using Astar as a stepping stone to pursue their own interests in other ecosystems. This is not the type of project that the dApp staking program should be supporting.

3. Neurolanche Has Exploited dApp Staking Without Accountability

Neurolanche has benefited massively from the dApp staking program, receiving substantial rewards. Yet, despite this funding, they have failed to deliver any meaningful results.

The Astar community has placed its trust in the dApp staking program to support genuine builders, not opportunists looking to extract rewards without contributing to the ecosystem.

Allowing Neurolanche to continue benefiting from dApp staking sends the message that exploitative behavior will be tolerated.

This is not the message we want to send to the broader blockchain community. If Astar wants to attract serious builders and projects, it must take a stand against projects that abuse the system.

4. Allowing Neurolanche to Stay Will Damage the Program’s Reputation

The dApp staking program is one of Astar’s most valuable innovations. It provides real incentives for real builders to create projects that generate value for the network.

However, its credibility is at risk if projects like Neurolanche are allowed to remain despite failing to meet the core criteria of the program.

Continuing to fund Neurolanche through dApp staking will:

  • Damage the program’s reputation
  • Discourage legitimate builders from participating
  • Undermine community trust in Astar’s governance

The evidence is clear. Neurolanche:

  • Brings no on-chain value to Astar
  • Chose to launch their token on a competing network
  • Has provided no tangible support to the ecosystem
  • Offers products with no meaningful blockchain integration
  • Exploited dApp staking without accountability

There is no justification for allowing Neurolanche to continue benefiting from the dApp staking program. It’s time to delist the project and refocus the program’s resources on genuine builders who are committed to growing the Astar ecosystem.

Let’s ensure that dApp staking remains a tool for fostering innovation and sustainable growth, not a personal treasury for opportunistic actors.

4 Likes
17

This might come across as a somewhat shallow opinion, but if Astar is to continue in its current form without transitioning to Soneium, then I believe this discussion is indeed necessary.

However, given that the transition to Soneium is now imminent, focusing on a single dApp seems to lack practical relevance in the current context.

In just one month, a new factor—Soneium—will be introduced into the Astar ecosystem.

What is crucial at this juncture is to comprehensively define what constitutes “contributing to the Astar ecosystem” after the Soneium transition. Based on this definition, if Neurolanche is deemed unsuitable, it would be more rational to reevaluate and exclude it along with other dApps, if necessary, at that time.

At present, the priority should be to establish a clear definition of “contribution to the Astar ecosystem” in light of the inclusion of Soneium, as well as to develop entry qualification guidelines for dApps that align with this new framework.

Thank you.

18

Hello WakeUp

I would like you to hear my opinion on Neurolanche, not as a defense but as a neutral perspective.

You have been asking very deep technical questions about Neurolanche, but are you raising similar questions for other DApps as well? Honestly, if Neurolanche is just a wrapper for ChatGPT, I don’t think it will surpass ChatGPT itself. The evaluation of Neurolanche will be made in the market, and it is unlikely that Neurolanche will achieve explosive glory. I believe that the evaluation should be left to the market.

On the other hand, as far as I know, Neurolanche, including CEO Leo, has posted the most about “ASTAR” and “$ASTR” on X in the past year. It’s even more than the ASTAR core team (laughs). I don’t know of any other DApps that are as active.

As a result, Neurolanche has become the top DApp in DApp staking, and it has undeniably contributed to the ecosystem in terms of “appealing to the mass market,” as Sota often says.

Therefore, I feel there is a bit of a one-sided view in proposing a delisting without considering the “contribution” aspect.

As I mentioned in my response to others, in one month, a new element—Soneium—will be introduced into the Astar ecosystem. New guidelines will be created, and based on this definition, if Neurolanche is deemed unsuitable, it would be more rational to reevaluate and exclude it along with other DApps at that time.

19

For some people, I’m just someone who exploits $ASTR. (This is funny because we became the project that brought the most users to the ecosystem with 1,950 stakers. Moreover, we are the most trusted and active project in the community, answering the questions asked here every day with my tweet and in community.)

Even if Neurolanche gets delisted, we’ll see the transaction volumes on Astar and Soneium when the application launches at the end of this month. If we fail, I’ll personally write a delisting statement for Neurolanche at the end of this season.

Remember: Real technologies speak for themselves with the value of their products, not with investors’ money.

20

Leo, your response is yet another disappointing attempt to deflect accountability. For weeks, you’ve been spinning narratives, making bold claims, and promising groundbreaking technologies, all while avoiding the transparency the community has been asking for.

Enough is enough. The endless cycle of excuses, delays, and vague assurances has worn thin. You’ve had every opportunity to prove yourself, yet here we are, still waiting for real answers, real evidence, and real value. Trust isn’t built on empty words or the number of stakers, it’s built on integrity and delivering on promises, both of which you’ve failed to demonstrate.

It’s time for the community and the council to act. This ecosystem deserves better than smoke and mirrors. No more delays, no more deflections, it’s time to hold Neurolanche accountable and stop this charade once and for all. The community’s trust and resources are too valuable to be squandered any longer.

@Maarten @sota @Mouthmouth68 @AstarHood @Gaius_sama

21

1- As Neurolanche, we provide transparent updates daily, both within the community and through weekly meeting videos, explaining every detail. You asked me for the GitHub repository, but I told you I could show it to you directly. However, you haven’t responded. As I said, even if you’re on the other side of the world, I can come to you and show it.

2- Real answers and evidence are already visible through the product we’ve built. Despite your insults over the past few days, I’ve answered all your questions publicly in the community and on social media. If you genuinely seek answers, you can start by revealing who you really are.

Join my community and ask your question there. Let’s see how informed my community is about the questions you’re asking. If you claim to be avoiding the community, I’d like you to consider the fact that the total number of stakers on Neurolanche is almost equal to the combined total of all other projects.

3- The community and council can always question everything, but anyone stepping outside the bounds of respect will receive their response. As I said:

Less talk, proof with product. From NFT collections to various other fields, Neurolanche has proven itself so far. Let’s talk again when our AI application launches at the end of the month.

Have a good day.