$TUT The most worth researching in this case isn’t just slapping another AI label on it—it already has evidence that can be mapped to a specific product. But between “it has built an application” and “there is ongoing demand for the token,” there’s still a stretch of work that requires auditing.
On September 24, 2026 at 19:25:33 Beijing time, Binance TUT/USDT is quoted at 0.02967 USDT. It’s up 18.21% over the past 24 hours. The trading pair’s volume is approximately 12.7523 million USDT.
Among the top ten gainers in this batch, it ranks fifth. This is the starting point for the research; it can’t be used as evidence of the user base by itself.
First, confirm there’s no error in the checked project.
“Tutorial” is too common an English word, and a quick search easily turns up teaching software from other parties. I first cross-checked Binance’s March 2025 spot listing announcement, then looked at a contemporaneous announcement from another exchange: both list TUT as the same contract on BNB Smart Chain, with the same trailing 99f3. The official website shown by that exchange currently also displays this same contract.
This confirmation matters a lot. A similarly named AI website may have revenue and users, but that does not mean those achievements belong to TUT.
If you continue checking from the correct official website, you can reach Tutorial AI’s product page, then the Apple App Store page for (Tutorial AI: Study Tutor). The store page shows the developer Yerasyl Amanbek and also lists in-app purchase items;
The developer website points back to the same product domain. The official website and the store can be mapped back and forth, which at least shows there is a recognizable software delivery target here—not just a few concept images being displayed.
However, the feature descriptions on the App Store are mostly provided by the developer. Apple has not audited its operating data. What the store shows is that the app and subscription items exist, not proof of commercial success.
Two products, two usage paths
Mobile applications focus on organizing learning materials: taking inputs like videos, articles, and documents and turning them into notes, flashcards, and quizzes. What it is solving isn’t a lack of materials, but the fact that people can’t remember what they’ve seen and it takes too much time to organize it.
Whether it’s worth paying ultimately depends on whether the generated content is accurate and whether review is convenient—whether users will still open it a week later. Having a model summarize an article is only the beginning; if you always have to spend the same time fixing errors, the rationale for saving time becomes weak. These are the product-competition issues you need to address, and blockchain identity alone can’t solve them.
Another path is the online course platform. The project’s official page allows creators to publish courses and clearly states that TUT can be used to support creators and that content authors can receive tips. So at least there is a token use scenario that can be described clearly: learners are willing to support an author and transfer TUT out via BNB Chain.
But voluntary tips are different from forced consumption. Someone reads a course doesn’t mean that person necessarily buys tokens; someone received TUT doesn’t mean those tokens will permanently exit circulation. Therefore, between “education platform access growth” and “ongoing token demand growth,” we need to look at actual payment behavior; we can’t just look at the number of course titles increasing.
Pricing has been posted, but the operating results are not yet turned in
The Pro subscription listed in the US App Store is $4.99 per month or $29.99 per year, consistent with the price marked on the product landing page. This price has been verified by correspondence across two pages. The product page also states that subscriptions are processed through the app store.
There’s also a small contradiction we can’t skip: the landing page says free has 5 lessons per week and Pro has 30 lessons per week; the store description says free has 2 lessons per day and Pro has unlimited generation. The two pages are not fully synchronized.
I’m more inclined to interpret it as “public bundle information needs to be unified,” rather than selecting a nicer set of numbers to promote the project. Without reaching the actual purchase interface, this article does not ask readers to assume the currently effective quota, nor does it directly elevate this inconsistency into product deception.
Why are these details worth writing? Because the pricing model affects costs. If the upper limit of content generation for paid users differs, then the computing consumption that each subscription account may incur will also differ. Even if the price is the same, the fulfillment cost may not be. With only the subscription price and no actual usage volume and renewal data, profit cannot be inferred.
Similarly, the course platform homepage reports 423+ courses and 74+ creators, but in this page read, the course section shows both an empty list prompt and also displays specific course cards, including test courses. This suggests the platform is organizing content, but it does not allow precise calculation of active teachers, paying students, or content quality based on this alone.
To avoid treating what’s displayed on pages as audited operating statistics, I did not use these numbers to estimate growth.
On-chain numbers can be verified, but they can’t replace business accounting
In this check, using two BSC RPC endpoints, we read the TUT contract in the same block 123749016 and obtained the same result: totalSupply is 1 billion tokens. In the commonly used burn addresses, there are about 169 million tokens, which is about 16.90% of this contract’s total amount.
The on-chain verification time was around 19:28 Beijing time on September 24.
This provides a verifiable supply snapshot, and it also reminds us not to mix different token standards. The contract’s total quantity still shows 1 billion, and transferring to a burn address does not necessarily change the returned value of totalSupply. Simply subtracting the balance of that address leaves about 831 million, but this subtraction has not identified other restricted addresses, attribution, or circulation rules; therefore it cannot be taken directly as audited circulating market supply.
We also can’t get from the burn address having tokens to infer that all of those tokens came from application revenue buybacks. To prove the latter, at least the income source, the buyback wallets, and the burn transactions need to be connected. This chain of evidence wasn’t verified in this review, and the article won’t fill in the gaps.
That the contract owner returns the zero address is a concrete fact, but it only reflects the status of the owner field that was checked. It is not enough to prove that the application, liquidity pools, and all related contracts are safe. Writing a function return value as “fully decentralized with no risk whatsoever” is no more rigorous than inventing income out of thin air.
Where is TUT at now in the process?
I think TUT has gone one step further than merely talking about AI education concepts: it can find corresponding product entry points, application store records, publicly stated subscription prices, and token tips/donations described on the course platform. There is indeed something worth further research.
However, the next step cannot be done by simply amplifying these pieces of evidence tenfold. Subscription payments for the application, the TUT that course authors receive, and the turnover that happens on exchanges are three distinct activities. This article did not find enough evidence to fully connect them—no evidence of revenue allocation or ongoing buybacks—and it also did not obtain independently verifiable subscription customer and retention data.
What would truly improve my evaluation is unified, continuous disclosure of real payments and usage for product bundles, and payment records related to tokens that are computable. Conversely, if the app only brings one-time trial users and tips mainly depend on events—while token attention far outpaces usage—then the existence of the product cannot, by itself, carry the valuation narrative.
The conclusion this study can make is very clear: delivery evidence exists, but business continuity has not been proven. Token existence has use cases, but we still can’t equate application growth with tokens flowing back in value. Compared with finding a pleasing reason for today’s price rise, this kind of judgment at this point is more useful.
This article is a compilation of publicly available information and personal opinions; it does not constitute any investment advice. The project’s self-reported data and content that could not be independently verified have been noted in the article—please verify on your own.
Market data format: Binance TUT/USDT spot, rolling 24 hours; as of 19:25:33 Beijing time on September 24, 2026.
Source: Binance TUT/USDT spot rolling 24-hour snapshot, 19:25:33 Beijing time on September 24, 2026; Binance’s announcement of the first Vote to List listing results, March 27, 2025;
A contemporaneous listing announcement from another exchange, March 18, 2025; the Tutorial Token official website, Tutorial AI product and pricing page, and the Tutorial Learn course platform, accessed on September 24, 2026;
Apple US App Store product page for (Tutorial AI: Study Tutor) and in-app purchase information, accessed on the same day; two public RPC endpoints on BNB Chain—TUT contract total supply, precision, owner, and burn address balance reads for BSC block 123749016 verified at around 19:28 Beijing time on September 24, 2026.