UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

Counts include misses. The report never hides an outcome because it contradicted the original call.

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x076431ef59ff83495935879ad2244a3ea4812b02",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 51,
  "grade": "D",
  "risk_level": "HIGH",
  "flags": [],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 4.8).\n⚖️ Safety vs Social: This conflict means investors face a technically secure asset (verified contract, burned liquidity) that lacks a legitimate, engaged community, indicating potential for manipulation. While the contract might be 'safe' from direct rug pulls, poor social metrics suggest unsustainable growth driven by hype, not organic adoption, posing significant market risk.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs TokenomicsBot: Split verdict: TokenomicsBot maintains 6.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 3.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.66\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token presents a mixed on-chain health profile, balancing a recent significant price surge and verified contract age with concerns regarding high \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low given the token's recent 312% price increase and 767-day cont\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 6.0 reflects a balanced view, acknowledging the token's strong foundational security aspects like 100% liquidity burned and a mature age o\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5 is too low, as it overlooks critical security strengths such as the verifie\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a recent price surge and active trading, 'based' operates in a neutral market regime without clear macro catalysts or strong sector tailwinds.\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's higher score overlooks the significant macro vulnerabilities, such as high concentra\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's lower scor\nMost optimistic: Tokenomics (6.0/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (3.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 767,
      "liquidity_usd": 23054.99,
      "holder_count": 1491,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token is 767 days old, indicating longevity beyond typical rug pulls.",
      "Mint Authority is Revoked, preventing arbitrary token inflation.",
      "Freeze Authority is Revoked, preventing malicious freezing of funds.",
      "LP Status is burned, securing liquidity from removal.",
      "Liquidity ($23K) is a high percentage of Market Cap ($35K), indicating good trading health for its size.",
      "Top 10 holder concentration (54.2%) is acceptable for a small, older memecoin, especially with no identified protocol-controlled wallets.",
      "RugCheck score is N/A, which is neutral and expected for tokens not specifically covered or for which data isn't available, and does not indicate risk here given other strong fundamentals."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 1491,
    "lp_holder_count": 2,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.5422,
    "top10_holders_pct": 54.22,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": "burned",
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
        "severity": "info",
        "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "severity": "info",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-27T01:12:42.440382Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 172.91,
  "summary": "based (based) is a well-established base token with $35K market cap, 2+ years old.  Key concerns: limited liquidity. Overall verdict: D — high risk — significant concerns identified.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 2.4,
    "name": "based",
    "symbol": "based",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.03507,
    "mcap": 35036,
    "market_cap": 35036,
    "volume_24h": 55350.81,
    "liquidity_usd": 23054.99,
    "contract_age_days": 767,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 1491,
    "top10_holders_pct": 54.22,
    "holders_by_acquisition": null,
    "holder_change_24h": null,
    "holder_change_7d": null,
    "holder_change_30d": null,
    "holder_supply_top10_pct": null,
    "holder_supply_top25_pct": null,
    "holder_supply_top50_pct": null,
    "holder_supply_top100_pct": null,
    "exchange_wallet_pct": null,
    "net_exchange_flow_24h_usd": null,
    "top_holders": null,
    "top10_whale_pct": null,
    "top10_protocol_pct": null,
    "mint_authority": null,
    "freeze_authority": null,
    "mutable_metadata": null,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": "burned",
    "lp_locked_pct": 100,
    "lp_burned_pct": 100,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": 0,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": null,
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://stopcaring.xyz",
      "twitter": "https://twitter.com/BasedStopCaring",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/BasedBasePortal"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 6,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The 'based' token exhibits a healthy 1.0 MCap/FDV ratio, indicating full circulation and no future dilution risk, complemented by 100% burned LP for strong rug-pull protection. However, a high top 10 holder concentration of 54.22% and a relatively low market cap of $35,036 suggest potential for price volatility despite decent liquidity ($23,055) relative to its market cap (0.658 ratio).; unlock risk 0/100; + No dilution risk: MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 indicates all supply is circulating with no future unlocks or emissions., Strong liquidity protection: 100% of LP is burned, eliminating rug-pull risk from the liquidity pool., Decent liquidity relative to market cap: Liquidity of $23,055 represents 65.8% of the market cap, providing some trading depth.; risks: High concentration: Top 10 holders control 54.22% of the supply, posing a risk of significant price impact from large sales., Low market capitalization: At $35,036, the token is highly susceptible to manipulation and large price swings., Limited data: Missing creator balance, exchange breadth, and all-venue volume makes a comprehensive assessment challenging., Meme token volatility: As a meme token, its value is highly speculative and subject to rapid sentiment shifts.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Despite a 100% LP lock, the 'based' token exhibits severe red flags for a mature meme token, including extreme holder concentration, low liquidity relative to its market cap, and a critical unknown regarding mint authority. The recent pump appears to be a manipulative event, and the token is highly vulnerable to a catastrophic dump by its concentrated holders.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (Top 10 hold 54.22%) leading to potential market manipulation and price volatility., Unknown mint authority status, posing a significant risk of token dilution or developer rug pull despite LP lock., Low liquidity ($23k) makes the token highly susceptible to large sell-offs and price crashes., Recent 312% price pump on low volume and market cap suggests artificial inflation rather than organic growth., Lack of project description and minimal social/security data for a mature token indicates poor transparency and potential abandonment.; open questions: Mint authority status (critical for meme tokens)., Project description and roadmap (if any)., Identity or intentions of the top 10 holders.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits a mixed on-chain health profile with moderate activity and significant holder concentration. While the recent price surge and transaction volume indicate some trading interest, the high percentage of supply held by the top 10 holders raises concerns about distribution quality and potential market manipulation.",
        "positives": [
          "Verified contract with a mature age of 767 days",
          "Recent price increase of 312% indicates potential interest",
          "593 transactions in the last 24 hours show active trading"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 54.22% of the total supply, indicating high concentration",
          "Liquidity is relatively thin at $23,054.99, which may affect execution quality",
          "Limited data on total volume across venues makes it hard to assess overall market depth",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has a verified contract and a mature age of 767 days, with 100% of liquidity burned. However, the concentration of top holders and the lack of detailed governance information present some risks.; risks: High concentration of supply among top holders (54.22% controlled by top 10 holders), Unknown governance and creator address, leading to uncertainty in authority, No formal audit available, which raises concerns about potential vulnerabilities, Lack of information on liquidity provider (LP) lock/burn status, despite LP being burned; confidence 0.25",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 5.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); The token 'based' is currently positioned in a neutral market regime with a significant recent price surge, but its high holder concentration and low market cap raise concerns about liquidity vulnerability. While it benefits from active trading, its lack of identifiable catalysts and sector strength compared to peers limits its resilience in a potential downturn.; drivers: Recent 312% price increase indicating speculative interest, Active trading volume at 1.6x market cap suggests liquidity, Mature token age of 767 days provides some stability; risks: High concentration of top holders (54.22%) increases vulnerability to sell-offs, Low market cap ($35,036) makes it fragile in risk-off scenarios, Lack of clear project description and identifiable catalysts; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=2.0, IQ=1.0, CG=2.0, BSD=5.0; Minimal social presence with recent degen hype around price pump tying into 'based' meme and Henry avatar narrative, but official account inactive, low engagement, and dominated by small accounts with risk warnings.; narratives: Connection to Henry richpepe avatar signaling early ape/win, 'Based' meme revival on Base chain amid cultural references (Trump/Musk), OG low-cap pump potential; fake/coordination risk: 6/100; signals: High BND % (bundled buys) noted as dump risk, Top 10 holders control 54% supply (from context); confidence 0.45",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.45
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 4.8).\n⚖️ Safety vs Social: This conflict means investors face a technically secure asset (verified contract, burned liquidity) that lacks a legitimate, engaged community, indicating potential for manipulation. While the contract might be 'safe' from direct rug pulls, poor social metrics suggest unsustainable growth driven by hype, not organic adoption, posing significant market risk.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs TokenomicsBot: Split verdict: TokenomicsBot maintains 6.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 3.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.66\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token presents a mixed on-chain health profile, balancing a recent significant price surge and verified contract age with concerns regarding high \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low given the token's recent 312% price increase and 767-day cont\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 6.0 reflects a balanced view, acknowledging the token's strong foundational security aspects like 100% liquidity burned and a mature age o\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5 is too low, as it overlooks critical security strengths such as the verifie\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a recent price surge and active trading, 'based' operates in a neutral market regime without clear macro catalysts or strong sector tailwinds.\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's higher score overlooks the significant macro vulnerabilities, such as high concentra\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's lower scor\nMost optimistic: Tokenomics (6.0/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (3.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Social",
      "resolution": "This conflict means investors face a technically secure asset (verified contract, burned liquidity) that lacks a legitimate, engaged community, indicating potential for manipulation. While the contract might be 'safe' from direct rug pulls, poor social metrics suggest unsustainable growth driven by hype, not organic adoption, posing significant market risk.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Social scored 2.5/10 while Safety scored 6.0/10. This 3.5-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Safety may not translate to Social reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "This conflict means investors face a technically secure asset (verified contract, burned liquidity) that lacks a legitimate, engaged community, indicating potential for manipulation. While the contract might be 'safe' from direct rug pulls, poor social metrics suggest unsustainable growth driven by hype, not organic adoption, posing significant market risk.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs TokenomicsBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: TokenomicsBot maintains 6.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 3.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TokenomicsBot",
          "targetName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "⚔️ TokenomicsBot's 'bullish' 6.8/10 is absurd; while LP is burned, calling $23,055 'decent liquidity' for a $35,036 market cap is naive when 54.22% is held by the top 10, making it ripe for manipulation. The 'no dilution' argument is irrelevant when a few whales can dump the entire market cap with minimal effort, rendering any 'rug-pull protection' moot for retail buyers.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the valid concern regarding high top 10 concentration (54.22%) and potential manipulation, the 6.8 score reflects the strong foundational tokenomics: a 1.0 MCap/FDV ratio eliminates future dilution risk, and 100% burned LP provides robust rug-pull protection. The liquidity, at 65.8% of the market cap, is indeed decent *relative* to its size, mitigating some immediate dump impact despite whale risk, which is already factored into the score's deduction.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TokenomicsBot",
          "targetName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "⚔️ The 1.0 MCap/FDV ratio and burned LP are overshadowed by the 54.22% top 10 concentration, as $23,055 in 'decent liquidity' is still insufficient to absorb a significant dump from these whales, rendering 'rug-pull protection' meaningless for retail. The *relative* liquidity of 65.8% of the market cap still means a single whale holding 5.42% of the supply could wipe out 10% of that liquidity, proving the manipulation risk far outweighs theoretical dilution protection.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "While acknowledging the high top 10 concentration and current low liquidity as valid risks, my score accounts for the 1.0 MCap/FDV and burned LP, which provide foundational integrity against *direct* developer rug-pulls. The project's structure, not just current market depth, informs the score, suggesting potential for safer growth if liquidity improves.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.66",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token presents a mixed on-chain health profile, balancing a recent significant price surge and verified contract age with concerns regarding high \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low given the token's recent 312% price increase and 767-day cont\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 6.0 reflects a balanced view, acknowledging the token's strong foundational security aspects like 100% liquidity burned and a mature age o\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5 is too low, as it overlooks critical security strengths such as the verifie\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a recent price surge and active trading, 'based' operates in a neutral market regime without clear macro catalysts or strong sector tailwinds.\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's higher score overlooks the significant macro vulnerabilities, such as high concentra\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's lower scor"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "info",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: based — Score 51/100",
    "description": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 4.8).\n⚖️ Safety vs Social: This conflict means investors face a technically secure asset (verified",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x076431ef59ff83495935879ad2244a3ea4812b02"
  }
}