UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x2b4ef3592e6c72e2ebe2298267ca7e60d7782b50",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 13,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This token is effectively non-existent or completely abandoned, with zero holders, liquidity, market cap, and trading volume despite being over a year old.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 472,
      "liquidity_usd": 0,
      "holder_count": 0,
      "has_liquidity_pool": false,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Market Cap: $0.00",
      "Liquidity: $0.00",
      "Total Holders: 0",
      "24h Volume: $0.00",
      "Token Age: 472 days (no activity after creation)",
      "No social presence or external data available"
    ],
    "confidence": 1
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": null,
    "is_honeypot": null,
    "holder_count": null,
    "lp_holder_count": null,
    "top_10_holder_rate": null,
    "top10_holders_pct": null,
    "is_open_source": null,
    "is_proxy": null,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "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": "2026-04-29T01:07:15.018394Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 0,
  "summary": "Unknown Token () is a well-established base token with 1+ years old, verified contract.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": null,
    "name": "",
    "symbol": "",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0,
    "mcap": 0,
    "market_cap": 0,
    "volume_24h": 0,
    "liquidity_usd": 0,
    "contract_age_days": 472,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": null,
    "top10_holders_pct": null,
    "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": null,
    "lp_locked_pct": null,
    "lp_burned_pct": null,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": null,
    "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": null
  },
  "bots": {
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 0.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); This token, despite being 472 days old, shows no signs of activity or distribution. With zero market cap, FDV, liquidity, and reported holders, there is no basis to assess its tokenomics. The complete lack of data suggests the token is either defunct, never launched, or has no public presence.; unlock risk: uncertain; + Contract is reported as verified, which is a minor positive for contract transparency.; risks: No apparent market activity or liquidity, indicating zero tradability., Complete absence of holder data, suggesting no public distribution., Zero market capitalization and FDV, implying no value or adoption., Lack of any identifiable project or description, raising questions about its purpose.; confidence 0.10",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.1,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "This token, despite being 472 days old, shows no signs of activity or distribution. With zero market cap, FDV, liquidity, and reported holders, there is no basis to assess its tokenomics. The complete lack of data suggests the token is either defunct, never launched, or has no public presence.",
        "key_risks": [
          "No apparent market activity or liquidity, indicating zero tradability.",
          "Complete absence of holder data, suggesting no public distribution.",
          "Zero market capitalization and FDV, implying no value or adoption.",
          "Lack of any identifiable project or description, raising questions about its purpose.",
          "The token is 472 days old but shows no signs of life, suggesting it may be abandoned or a failed project."
        ],
        "positives": [
          "Contract is reported as verified, which is a minor positive for contract transparency."
        ],
        "unlock_risk": "uncertain",
        "distribution_assessment": "Distribution cannot be assessed as there are no reported holders or transactions. The token appears to have no active distribution.",
        "comparable_models": {
          "successful": [],
          "failed": []
        },
        "confidence": 0.1,
        "mcap": 0,
        "fdv": 0,
        "mcap_fdv_ratio": null,
        "top10_holders_pct": null,
        "holder_count": null,
        "liquidity_usd": 0,
        "liquidity_mcap_ratio": null
      }
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits no trading activity, with zero transactions, holders, and liquidity detected. Despite being verified and 472 days old, the complete absence of market engagement indicates a structurally weak position.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified",
          "Contract has been deployed for 472 days"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "No trading activity detected (0 transactions, 0 volume)",
          "Zero holders, indicating no distribution",
          "Liquidity is non-existent (0 USD)",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "The token exhibits no trading activity, with zero transactions, holders, and liquidity detected. Despite being verified and 472 days old, the complete absence of market engagement indicates a structurally weak position.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified",
          "Contract has been deployed for 472 days"
        ],
        "negatives": [
          "No trading activity detected (0 transactions, 0 volume)",
          "Zero holders, indicating no distribution",
          "Liquidity is non-existent (0 USD)",
          "Market cap is zero, suggesting no market presence"
        ],
        "anomaly_flags": [],
        "confidence": 0.25,
        "contract_age_days": 472,
        "tx_count_24h": 0,
        "volume_24h": 0,
        "price_usd": 0
      }
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; This token, despite its age and verified contract, exhibits all the characteristics of a completely failed or abandoned project. With zero liquidity, zero holders, and zero transactions over 472 days, there is no credible path to value. The initial neutral consensus is dangerously optimistic, as the token fundamentally lacks any positive signals.; risks: Complete lack of liquidity, making any theoretical token untradable., Zero holder count, indicating no distribution or community., No transactions, confirming complete inactivity and lack of utility., Absence of token name/symbol, suggesting a lack of basic project identity or public intention., Project abandonment, as evidenced by prolonged inactivity for over a year.; open questions: The original intent or purpose of the token creator., Whether the token was ever intended for public release or utility., The reason for its deployment without any subsequent activity.; confidence 1.00",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 1
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has a verified contract but lacks trading activity, holder distribution, and critical market data. The absence of audits and the unknown governance structure raise concerns about potential risks. The contract's age does not mitigate the lack of liquidity and user engagement.; CRITICAL: No trading activity or liquidity detected., Zero holders, indicating no distribution., Missing governance and creator information.; risks: No active trading or liquidity, indicating potential abandonment or lack of interest., Missing governance information, which raises concerns about who controls the contract., Absence of audits or third-party security checks, leaving potential vulnerabilities unassessed., Zero holders and transactions suggest a lack of distribution and community support.; confidence 0.20",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "The token has a verified contract but lacks trading activity, holder distribution, and critical market data. The absence of audits and the unknown governance structure raise concerns about potential risks. The contract's age does not mitigate the lack of liquidity and user engagement.",
        "key_risks": [
          "No active trading or liquidity, indicating potential abandonment or lack of interest.",
          "Missing governance information, which raises concerns about who controls the contract.",
          "Absence of audits or third-party security checks, leaving potential vulnerabilities unassessed.",
          "Zero holders and transactions suggest a lack of distribution and community support.",
          "The contract's functionality and economic model are unclear due to missing descriptive data."
        ],
        "critical_flags": [
          "No trading activity or liquidity detected.",
          "Zero holders, indicating no distribution.",
          "Missing governance and creator information."
        ],
        "confidence": 0.2,
        "mint_authority": null,
        "freeze_authority": null,
        "lp_status": null,
        "contract_verified": true
      }
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); This token appears to be in a highly fragile state with no active trading, market cap, or liquidity. The lack of any identifiable sector or trading activity suggests it is poorly positioned in the current neutral market regime, particularly given the prevailing fear sentiment.; risks: No active trading or liquidity, making it highly vulnerable to market sentiment shifts., Absence of identifiable sector or project fundamentals, leading to uncertainty., Current market regime is neutral with fear sentiment, which typically does not favor illiquid assets.; confidence 0.20",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "This token appears to be in a highly fragile state with no active trading, market cap, or liquidity. The lack of any identifiable sector or trading activity suggests it is poorly positioned in the current neutral market regime, particularly given the prevailing fear sentiment.",
        "key_drivers": [],
        "key_risks": [
          "No active trading or liquidity, making it highly vulnerable to market sentiment shifts.",
          "Absence of identifiable sector or project fundamentals, leading to uncertainty.",
          "Current market regime is neutral with fear sentiment, which typically does not favor illiquid assets.",
          "No known catalysts or developments that could drive interest or trading activity."
        ],
        "correlations": {
          "btc": "unknown",
          "eth": "unknown",
          "rates": "unknown",
          "dxy": "unknown"
        },
        "sector_outlook": "The token lacks a defined sector, making it difficult to assess its relative strength against peers. However, the absence of trading activity suggests it is not aligned with any sector trends.",
        "confidence": 0.2,
        "volume_24h": 0,
        "mcap": 0
      }
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=0.0, IQ=0.0, CG=0.0, BSD=10.0; No detectable social presence or discussion on X/Twitter for the token ($) or its contract address. Searches for the contract, token name, and related terms returned zero relevant results, only unrelated $BASE chain airdrop hype and random meme tokens.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "No detectable social presence or discussion on X/Twitter for the token ($) or its contract address. Searches for the contract, token name, and related terms returned zero relevant results, only unrelated $BASE chain airdrop hype and random meme tokens.",
        "fake_engagement_risk": 0,
        "confidence": 0.95,
        "sub_dimensions": {
          "organic_engagement": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "Zero posts or interactions found in searches.",
            "weight": 0.4
          },
          "influencer_quality": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "No mentions by any influencers.",
            "weight": 0.25
          },
          "community_growth": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "No evidence of growth or presence.",
            "weight": 0.2
          },
          "bot_spam_detection": {
            "score": 10,
            "rationale": "No activity to detect bots; absence is clean.",
            "weight": 0.15
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "6 agents analyzed this token. Security was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 1.2).\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict highlights that a token's technical contract integrity (verified, old) doesn't guarantee market viability or safety. An investor might be misled by a seemingly 'safe' contract structure if there's no actual market activity or liquidity, indicating a dead project despite a technically sound foundation.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot: Compromise: 3.0 → 2.0\nMost optimistic: Security (3.0/10) — AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has a verified contract but lacks trading activity, holder distribution, and critical market data.\nMost critical: Tokenomics (0.5/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights that a token's technical contract integrity (verified, old) doesn't guarantee market viability or safety. An investor might be misled by a seemingly 'safe' contract structure if there's no actual market activity or liquidity, indicating a dead project despite a technically sound foundation.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 1.0/10 while Safety scored 3.0/10. This 2.0-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Safety may not translate to Technical reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "content": "This conflict highlights that a token's technical contract integrity (verified, old) doesn't guarantee market viability or safety. An investor might be misled by a seemingly 'safe' contract structure if there's no actual market activity or liquidity, indicating a dead project despite a technically sound foundation.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 3.0 → 2.0",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 3.0/10 score is inexplicably generous; a verified contract and age mean nothing when there's zero trading, zero holders, and zero liquidity after 472 days. This isn't 'potential risk'—it's a confirmed dead token, making any score above zero dangerously misleading.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical lack of trading, liquidity, and holders, the verified contract provides a fundamental layer of transparency, allowing for code review and confirming its immutability, which prevents a 0.0/10 score. The 3.0/10 reflects this minimal transparency combined with the overwhelming evidence of an abandoned or failed project, indicating extreme risk rather than complete maliciousness or obfuscation.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ A verified, immutable contract offers no real-world security when there's zero liquidity, zero holders, and zero trading volume after 472 days; transparency without activity merely confirms the project's complete abandonment, not its viability or safety. The 3.0/10 score, even acknowledging 'minimal transparency,' still misleadingly implies a non-zero functional value for a token with absolutely no market presence or utility.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "The Devil's Advocate correctly highlighted that even an immutable contract offers no practical security benefit when zero liquidity, holders, and trading volume after 472 days confirm complete project abandonment, rendering its technical security moot.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "info",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm:  — Score 13/100",
    "description": "6 agents analyzed this token. Security was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 1.2).\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict highlights that a token's technical contract integrity (verifi",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x2b4ef3592e6c72e2ebe2298267ca7e60d7782b50"
  }
}