UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x1aa8fd5bcce2231c6100d55bf8b377cff33acfc3",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 26,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "Despite a significant market cap and age, the extremely low liquidity, high holder concentration, and complete lack of social presence indicate severe risks for investors.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 197,
      "liquidity_usd": 445839.89999999997,
      "holder_count": 14878,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Liquidity is critically low at $446K for a $170M market cap, indicating extreme price volatility and potential for large price impact on trades.",
      "Top 10 holders control 81.1% of the supply, with 0% identified as protocol-controlled, suggesting high centralization in individual wallets.",
      "No social presence or community links are provided, which is highly unusual and concerning for a 'DAO' token and suggests a lack of transparency or abandonment.",
      "Mint and Freeze authorities are revoked, which is positive, but does not mitigate the other critical risks."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 14878,
    "lp_holder_count": 14,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.8112,
    "top10_holders_pct": 81.12,
    "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": 81.12
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 81.12
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-05-02T13:17:44.405176Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 3343.8,
  "summary": "RaveDAO (RAVE) is a base token with $170.0M market cap, 197 days old. The Swarm found significant market cap ($170.0M).  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 1.3,
    "name": "RaveDAO",
    "symbol": "RAVE",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.6853,
    "mcap": 170007130,
    "market_cap": 170007130,
    "volume_24h": 578596.62,
    "liquidity_usd": 445839.89999999997,
    "contract_age_days": 197,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 14878,
    "top10_holders_pct": 81.12,
    "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": {
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); RaveDAO is currently positioned in a fragile state, with low liquidity and high holder concentration, making it vulnerable in a risk-off environment. The lack of sector strength and the prevailing market sentiment further exacerbate its downside risks.; drivers: Recent price increase of 3.87% may attract speculative interest., Potential for future governance proposals that could engage the community., Base chain's growing ecosystem could provide indirect support.; risks: High concentration of top holders (81.12%) increases vulnerability to sell-offs., Very low trading volume (0.0x market cap) indicates illiquidity., Current risk-off sentiment (Fear at 39/100) discourages investment.; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); RaveDAO (RAVE) has a mixed security posture. While it has a verified contract and a reasonable market cap, the high concentration of supply among the top holders and the unlocked liquidity pose potential risks. The absence of an audit and the lack of detailed holder distribution data contribute to uncertainty.; risks: High concentration of supply (top 10 holders control 81.12%), Unlocked liquidity pool (100% unlocked), No formal audit available, Owner privileges via Ownable contract (potential for ownership transfer); confidence 0.60",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.6
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); RaveDAO exhibits extremely concerning tokenomics with a market cap significantly exceeding its fully diluted valuation, indicating a severe mispricing or data anomaly. Top 10 holders control 81.12% of the supply, posing a high concentration risk, while liquidity is critically low at 0.3% of market cap. The project's longevity is questionable given these structural issues, especially in a risk-off market.; unlock risk: uncertain; + Decent holder count (14,878) for a token of its age, suggesting some level of adoption beyond the top holders., Positive 24-hour price change (+3.87%) despite overall market conditions, though this could be due to low liquidity and manipulation., 24-hour trading volume of $578,597 is higher than the reported liquidity, which could indicate trading across multiple venues or high turnover on the single reported pair, but doesn't negate the low liquidity depth.; risks: Extreme MCap/FDV ratio (14.252) indicates a severe data discrepancy or an unsustainable market valuation relative to total supply, suggesting a potential mispricing or a very low actual circulating supply not reflected in the FDV., High concentration: Top 10 holders control 81.12% of the supply, leading to significant centralization risk and potential for price manipulation., Critically low liquidity: Liquidity of $445,840 represents only 0.3% of the market cap, making the token highly susceptible to slippage and large price swings, especially during sell-offs., Lack of transparency: Missing data on creator balance, vesting schedules, and emissions prevents a full assessment of dilution and insider control.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; RaveDAO exhibits critical structural vulnerabilities that make it an extremely high-risk asset. The combination of concentrated ownership, unlocked liquidity, and potential for further token minting creates a scenario ripe for manipulation or a rug pull. The current valuation appears entirely speculative and unsupported by fundamental security or transparent tokenomics.; risks: Rug pull potential due to 0% LP locked and high holder concentration., Market manipulation risk from top 10 holders controlling 81.12% of supply., Inflationary risk if mint authority is not renounced and new tokens are created., Extreme valuation discrepancy (MCAP vs FDV) suggests a highly illiquid and potentially fragile market cap., Lack of transparency regarding tokenomics and supply release mechanisms.; open questions: Status of mint authority (renounced or not)., Specific vesting schedules or release mechanisms for the remaining token supply., Identity and intent of the top 10 holders.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); RaveDAO shows a mixed on-chain picture with a relatively high transaction count and a significant market cap, but also exhibits high concentration among top holders, indicating potential fragility. The liquidity is thin, and while the trading volume is decent, the lack of broader venue data limits confidence in overall market health.",
        "positives": [
          "High transaction count of 4,815 in the last 24 hours indicates active trading",
          "Market capitalization of $170 million suggests a substantial valuation",
          "Verified contract with a maturity of 197 days adds credibility"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 81.12% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "Liquidity is thin at $445,839.90, which could lead to price volatility",
          "Missing data on total volume across all venues limits understanding of market depth",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.0, IQ=2.0, CG=2.0, BSD=1.0; ⚠️ BREAKING: Pump-and-dump exposed: $0.24 → $28.46 → $0.75, leaving retail bagholders.; Scam allegations tagging SEC, comparing to FTX/LUNA.; RaveDAO ($RAVE) shows signs of a classic pump-and-dump scheme with a rapid rise from $0.24 to $28.46 followed by a crash to ~$0.75. Recent X activity dominated by low-quality shills promoting it as a past 100x or comparing to other tokens, alongside scam accusations and warnings of fake pumps. Minimal organic discussion or positive momentum.; narratives: Past 100x pump now consolidating for next leg (shill narrative)., Abandoned project turned pure memecoin/airdrop for retail traps., Predictable cycle: accumulation → hype → ape → bleed.; fake/coordination risk: 8/100; signals: Telegram spam and scammers reported., Coordinated shill waves promoting alternatives post-$RAVE dump.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm reached strong consensus: all 6 agents converged on Grade F.\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict signals that while on-chain activity might appear robust (high transaction count, decent volume), the underlying tokenomics reveal critical structural vulnerabilities like extreme concentration and potential mispricing. For investors, this means superficial technical strength could mask severe foundational risks, making the asset highly susceptible to manipulation or sudden value collapse if large holders act or if the market corrects the valuation discrepancy.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot: Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 2.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.73\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: While RaveDAO presents several risks such as high supply concentration and unlocked liquidity, the contract is verified and the project maintains a re\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low because the verified contract and existing market presence suggest a bas\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low, as the project's verified contract and established market cap, whi\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too low given that the token's verified contract and active market cap provide \n  [MacroBot] Defense: RaveDAO is in a fragile state due to low liquidity and high holder concentration, making it highly vulnerable to market downturns, especially given th\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 5.0 is too high; the macroeconomic environment does not support a token with \n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score of 5.0 is too high; while technicals might s\nMost optimistic: Macro (3.5/10) — AI macro (Grok); RaveDAO is currently positioned in a fragile state, with low liquidity and high holder concentration, making it vulnerable in a risk-off environment.\nMost critical: Tokenomics (1.5/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Technical vs Tokenomics",
      "resolution": "This conflict signals that while on-chain activity might appear robust (high transaction count, decent volume), the underlying tokenomics reveal critical structural vulnerabilities like extreme concentration and potential mispricing. For investors, this means superficial technical strength could mask severe foundational risks, making the asset highly susceptible to manipulation or sudden value collapse if large holders act or if the market corrects the valuation discrepancy.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Tokenomics scored 1.5/10 while Technical scored 5.0/10. This 3.5-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Technical may not translate to Tokenomics reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "This conflict signals that while on-chain activity might appear robust (high transaction count, decent volume), the underlying tokenomics reveal critical structural vulnerabilities like extreme concentration and potential mispricing. For investors, this means superficial technical strength could mask severe foundational risks, making the asset highly susceptible to manipulation or sudden value collapse if large holders act or if the market corrects the valuation discrepancy.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 2.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 'neutral' 5.0/10 score is dangerously optimistic, as it downplays critical vulnerabilities. A 'verified contract' and 'reasonable market cap' are irrelevant when 81.12% of supply is held by the top 10, and 100% of liquidity is unlocked, creating an undeniable rug-pull risk, not just 'potential risks' or 'uncertainty'.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the severe rug-pull risk from 81.12% supply concentration and 100% unlocked liquidity, the 5.0/10 score reflects a mixed posture. A verified contract allows for public scrutiny, and a reasonable market cap indicates some project activity, preventing a lower score despite the critical vulnerabilities. These factors, though not negating risk, contribute to a balanced assessment rather than an immediate 'scam' classification.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Security's claim that a 'verified contract' and 'reasonable market cap' prevent a lower score is illogical; these factors are entirely subordinate to the 81.12% top 10 concentration and 100% unlocked liquidity, which scream 'imminent rug-pull,' not 'mixed posture.' A verified contract only confirms the code is public, not that it's safe from centralized manipulation and liquidity drainage, making the 5.0/10 score fundamentally misleading.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "While the 81.12% top 10 concentration and 100% unlocked liquidity are significant red flags warranting concern, the verified contract and the current reasonable market cap (implying less immediate incentive for a large-scale rug-pull compared to a micro-cap with similar issues) still contribute to a mixed posture, not an immediate 'imminent rug-pull.' These mitigating factors, combined with the absence of other critical vulnerabilities like unverified contracts or known exploits, prevent a lo...",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.73",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: While RaveDAO presents several risks such as high supply concentration and unlocked liquidity, the contract is verified and the project maintains a re\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low because the verified contract and existing market presence suggest a bas\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low, as the project's verified contract and established market cap, whi\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too low given that the token's verified contract and active market cap provide \n  [MacroBot] Defense: RaveDAO is in a fragile state due to low liquidity and high holder concentration, making it highly vulnerable to market downturns, especially given th\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 5.0 is too high; the macroeconomic environment does not support a token with \n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score of 5.0 is too high; while technicals might s"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: RAVE — Score 26/100",
    "description": "The swarm reached strong consensus: all 6 agents converged on Grade F.\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict signals that while on-chain activity might appear robust (high transaction count, decen",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x1aa8fd5bcce2231c6100d55bf8b377cff33acfc3"
  }
}