UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x09b8903abf2ea0721e34427353988c2f43c6d64f",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 31,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration",
    "very_new_contract"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This is a very new token with extremely high holder concentration, suggesting a high risk of developer-controlled price manipulation or a rug pull, despite revoked mint/freeze authorities.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 1,
      "liquidity_usd": 1741903.69,
      "holder_count": 463,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token is only 1 day old, indicating a very recent launch with unproven stability.",
      "Top 10 holders control 88.1% of the supply, which is extremely high and concerning for a new token.",
      "Market cap ($2.6M) to liquidity ($1.7M) ratio is relatively healthy for a new token, but the concentration overshadows this.",
      "Mint authority is revoked (safe), preventing arbitrary token creation.",
      "Freeze authority is revoked (safe), preventing freezing of user funds.",
      "No social links provided, making it impossible to understand the project's purpose, team, or community.",
      "Mutable metadata status is unknown, which could allow for changes to token name/symbol/logo post-launch."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 463,
    "lp_holder_count": 1,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.8811,
    "top10_holders_pct": 88.11,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
        "value": 88.11
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 88.11
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-08T23:25:04.778534Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 10000,
  "summary": "LIQUID (LIQ) is a base token with $2.6M market cap, 1 days old. The Swarm found deep liquidity ($1.7M).  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 1.56,
    "name": "LIQUID",
    "symbol": "LIQ",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.0000256,
    "mcap": 2560516,
    "market_cap": 2560516,
    "volume_24h": 2712591.8,
    "liquidity_usd": 1741903.69,
    "contract_age_days": 1,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 463,
    "top10_holders_pct": 88.11,
    "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": "unlocked",
    "lp_locked_pct": 0,
    "lp_burned_pct": 0,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": 100,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": null,
    "social_links": null,
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The LIQUID token shows a high transaction count and significant trading volume for its nascent age, indicating initial interest. However, the extreme concentration among top holders raises concerns about distribution quality and potential market manipulation.",
        "positives": [
          "High transaction count of 5552 in the last 24 hours, indicating active trading",
          "Significant 24-hour trading volume of $2,712,591.80, suggesting liquidity",
          "Verified contract, which adds a layer of trust"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 88.11% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "Only 463 reported holders, suggesting limited distribution",
          "Liquidity depth of $1,741,903.69 may not be sufficient for larger trades",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); LIQUID (LIQ) is a nascent token with a strong initial price surge but faces significant liquidity vulnerability due to its high holder concentration and low market cap. The current extreme fear sentiment in the market suggests potential fragility, yet its active trading volume indicates some resilience in the face of broader market conditions.; drivers: High trading volume relative to market cap (1.1x), Recent price surge of +136% in 24 hours, Verified contract status may instill some confidence; risks: Extreme fear sentiment (17/100) indicating overall market caution, High concentration of top holders (88.11%) raises liquidity concerns, Lack of established utility or project goals creates uncertainty; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The LIQUID token exhibits significant risks due to its nascent status, high holder concentration, and lack of liquidity pool security. The presence of admin privileges allows for potential manipulation of the token's supply and governance, which is concerning given the current market conditions and the token's short operational history.; CRITICAL: Admin can change supply and governance without oversight., Liquidity pool is fully unlocked, posing a risk of rug pull.; risks: Admin privileges allow for potential supply manipulation and governance changes., 100% of liquidity is unlocked, posing a risk of sudden liquidity drain., 88.11% of the supply is controlled by the top 10 holders, indicating extreme concentration., No audit or third-party verification available, increasing uncertainty.; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); LIQUID exhibits extremely high concentration with the top 10 holders controlling 88.11% of the supply, posing significant centralization risk. While liquidity is deep relative to market cap (0.68), the 100% unlocked LP and high concentration suggest potential for large price swings and manipulation. The 1:1 MCap/FDV ratio indicates full circulation, but this doesn't mitigate the concentration risk.; unlock risk 100/100; + Contract is verified, indicating a basic level of transparency., Market Cap ($2.56M) equals FDV, suggesting all tokens are in circulation and no future dilution from unminted supply., Deep liquidity relative to market cap (0.68), which is good for trading, but the unlocked status is a major caveat.; risks: Extreme centralization: Top 10 holders control 88.11% of supply, enabling potential market manipulation or large sell-offs., Liquidity Pool (LP) is 100% unlocked, creating a rug pull risk or significant liquidity withdrawal potential., Lack of information on project utility, team, or long-term vision, which is concerning given the high concentration., High price volatility (+136% in 24h) combined with concentrated ownership suggests speculative trading rather than organic growth.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=7.0, IQ=8.0, CG=6.0, BSD=8.0; ⚠️ BREAKING: Liquid Protocol launch on Base with Rainbow partnership.; First $LIQUID token deployed on the platform.; LIQUID ($LIQ) is a new token launcher protocol on Base, forked from Clanker by its ex-co-founder @_proxystudio and @m00npapi. Launched today with partnership from Rainbow, generating early buzz in Base ecosystem with notable mentions and wallet activity interest. Solid start for a 1-day-old project.; narratives: Successor to Clanker launchpad on Base., Base ecosystem tool with revenue share to Rainbow.; fake/coordination risk: 2/100; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [BULL contrarian]; LIQUID, despite its nascent status, shows exceptional early market validation with high liquidity and trading volume. The bearish focus on initial holder concentration and lack of LP lock overlooks the potential for organic distribution and the significant capital commitment already present, suggesting a stronger bull case than the consensus allows.; risks: High initial holder concentration (88.11% in top 10) could lead to price manipulation if not diluted over time., Lack of LP lock (0.0%) presents a theoretical rug pull risk, though mitigated by current liquidity size and trading volume., Unknown mint authority status (mint_renounced: unknown) could allow for inflationary attacks if not renounced., No clear project description or utility, making long-term value proposition speculative., Reliance on continued strong market interest to dilute concentrated holdings and establish stability.; open questions: Specific details on token utility and project roadmap., Status of mint authority renouncement., Identity and intentions of top holders.; confidence 0.75",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.75
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Technical vs Safety: This conflict highlights a critical divergence: while technical indicators suggest initial market interest and activity, severe safety vulnerabilities expose investors to potential rug pulls or manipulation. Investors face a high-risk scenario where apparent growth could be abruptly undermined by unaddressed security flaws and centralized control, leading to significant capital loss despite seemingly positive trading metrics.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot: Compromise: 7.5 → 7.0\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.66\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: Despite concerns about holder concentration, the token exhibits strong initial market activity with a high transaction count and significant trading v\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low because the verified contract and active trading volume suggest a bas\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low as the token's high transaction count and trading volume, even with\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because while social engagement might be strong, the extreme concentra\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The presence of critical vulnerabilities, specifically admin privileges allowing unchecked changes to supply and governance, combined with an unlocked\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score of 5.0 is too high because it understates the immediate and critical risk pose\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 5.0 is excessively high given the foundat\nMost optimistic: Devil's Advocate (6.5/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Security (2.0/10) — AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The LIQUID token exhibits significant risks due to its nascent status, high holder concentration, and lack of liquidity pool security.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Technical vs Safety",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence: while technical indicators suggest initial market interest and activity, severe safety vulnerabilities expose investors to potential rug pulls or manipulation. Investors face a high-risk scenario where apparent growth could be abruptly undermined by unaddressed security flaws and centralized control, leading to significant capital loss despite seemingly positive trading metrics.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Safety scored 2.0/10 while Technical scored 5.0/10. This 3.0-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Technical may not translate to Safety reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence: while technical indicators suggest initial market interest and activity, severe safety vulnerabilities expose investors to potential rug pulls or manipulation. Investors face a high-risk scenario where apparent growth could be abruptly undermined by unaddressed security flaws and centralized control, leading to significant capital loss despite seemingly positive trading metrics.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 7.5 → 7.0",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ SocialBot's 'early buzz' and 'notable mentions' are superficial for a 1-day-old project, especially when critical security risks like admin privileges and an unlocked LP (SecurityBot, TokenomicsBot) are glaring. Furthermore, 'forked from Clanker by its ex-co-founder' could signal a project with prior issues or team instability, not a 'solid start'.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the valid security and tokenomics concerns, my 7.5/10 score reflects strong initial social traction for a 1-day-old project, evidenced by high X/Twitter sentiment (Grok IQ 8.0, BSD 8.0), a significant Rainbow partnership, and immediate 'early buzz' and 'notable mentions' within the Base ecosystem. The 'forked from Clanker' narrative, while potentially signaling prior issues, also generated significant social discussion and interest from a known team member, contributing to its immediate visibility and engagement, which is precisely what a new project needs socially.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ Social traction, even with high X/Twitter sentiment and a 'Rainbow partnership,' remains superficial when critical security risks like admin privileges and an unlocked LP (SecurityBot, TokenomicsBot) expose users to total loss, irrespective of early buzz. The 'forked from Clanker' narrative, coupled with these unmitigated risks, suggests a project inheriting instability and potential vulnerabilities, making 'strong initial social traction' a dangerous distraction rather than a solid foundation.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "The glaring security vulnerabilities, specifically admin privileges and an unlocked LP, present an unacceptable risk of total loss that outweighs even strong social sentiment, making a score reduction necessary.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "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: Despite concerns about holder concentration, the token exhibits strong initial market activity with a high transaction count and significant trading v\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low because the verified contract and active trading volume suggest a bas\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low as the token's high transaction count and trading volume, even with\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because while social engagement might be strong, the extreme concentra\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The presence of critical vulnerabilities, specifically admin privileges allowing unchecked changes to supply and governance, combined with an unlocked\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score of 5.0 is too high because it understates the immediate and critical risk pose\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 5.0 is excessively high given the foundat"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "high",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "high_holder_concentration",
      "message": "high_holder_concentration"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "very_new_contract",
      "message": "very_new_contract"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: LIQ — Score 31/100",
    "description": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Technical vs Safety: This conflict highlights a critical divergence: while technical indicators suggest initial ",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x09b8903abf2ea0721e34427353988c2f43c6d64f"
  }
}