AVOID

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x2e44aB95549b8a12AFDB970bde5A6a78365e4444",
  "chain": "bsc",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 34.5,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "The VerdictSwarm collectively identified ZygoSwap as a high-risk asset, culminating in a final grade of F (3.5/10), primarily driven by critical security vulnerabilities. SecurityBot flagged a lack of contract verification, missing governance, and no audit for a 210-day-old token, concerns echoed by Devil's Advocate. While TokenomicsBot noted a healthy 1.02 MCap/FDV ratio and TechnicianBot observed 4,378 transactions and 1,852 holders, these positive metrics were overshadowed by the fundamental safety issues. The core disagreement involved SecurityBot's severe risk assessment clashing with other bots highlighting activity and tokenomics, but the consensus prioritized safety. This F grade signifies extreme caution is warranted due to unmitigated security risks, despite some market activity. Avoid investment until fundamental security concerns, like contract verification and audits, are fully addressed.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": false,
      "token_age_days": 210,
      "liquidity_usd": 91672.68999999999,
      "holder_count": 1852,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "bsc"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token age is 210 days, indicating established operations beyond typical quick-rug timelines.",
      "Top 10 concentration is low at 31.8% across 1,852 holders.",
      "Mint and freeze authorities are both revoked, protecting against supply inflation and account freezing.",
      "Liquidity of $92K is well-proportioned for a $554K market cap."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 1852,
    "lp_holder_count": 4,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.3178,
    "top10_holders_pct": 31.78,
    "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": "2026-07-28T18:39:24.811322Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "action": "avoid",
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 687.55,
  "degraded_agents": [],
  "data_confidence": 0.59,
  "summary": "ZygoSwap (ZSWAP) is a bsc token with $554K market cap, 210 days old.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 6.77,
    "name": "ZygoSwap",
    "symbol": "ZSWAP",
    "chain": "bsc",
    "price_usd": 0.00055409,
    "mcap": 553836,
    "market_cap": 553836,
    "volume_24h": 620701,
    "liquidity_usd": 91672.68999999999,
    "contract_age_days": 210,
    "contract_verified": false,
    "holder_count": 1852,
    "top10_holders_pct": 31.78,
    "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": 99.65,
    "lp_burned_pct": 99.65,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": 0.35,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": null,
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://www.zygoswap.io/swap",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/ZSWAP_DEX",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/zygoswapDEX"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token exhibits significant risks due to lack of verification, missing governance information, and no transaction activity. The liquidity is low, and the contract has not been audited, raising concerns about potential vulnerabilities.; CRITICAL: Contract is not verified, which poses a significant risk., No audit report available, indicating potential undiscovered vulnerabilities.; risks: Unverified contract status raises concerns about potential exploits., Lack of governance information leaves holders vulnerable to arbitrary changes., No transaction activity suggests low interest or potential abandonment., High percentage of liquidity burned does not guarantee safety; remaining liquidity is minimal.; confidence 0.20",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); ZygoSwap (ZSWAP) shows a healthy MCap/FDV ratio of 1.02, indicating most supply is circulating, and a strong Liquidity/MCap ratio of 0.166, suggesting deep liquidity for its current valuation. The LP is significantly burned at 99.65%, which is a positive for long-term stability, although the top 10 holders still control 31.78% of the supply.; unlock risk 0/100; + High MCap/FDV ratio (1.02) indicates most tokens are in circulation, reducing future dilution risk., Deep liquidity with a Liquidity/MCap ratio of 0.166, supported by a significant 24h volume of $620,701., Nearly all LP (99.65%) is burned, providing strong assurance against rug pulls and enhancing long-term liquidity stability.; risks: Concentration risk from top 10 holders at 31.78% could lead to price manipulation., Lack of detailed vesting schedule or emissions data makes future supply dynamics uncertain., The project description is unknown, which raises questions about its long-term vision and utility., Contract verification status is False, which can be a red flag for security and transparency.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits a moderate level of activity with 4,378 transactions in the last 24 hours and a holder count of 1,852, indicating some organic interest. However, the top 10 holders control 31.8% of the supply, suggesting a degree of concentration that could pose risks. Liquidity is relatively low at $91,672.69, but the presence of multiple exchange listings provides some trading options.",
        "positives": [
          "4,378 transactions in the last 24 hours indicating active trading",
          "1,852 holders showing a reasonable distribution of ownership",
          "Total volume of $620,701 across all venues suggests decent interest"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 31.8% of the supply, indicating potential concentration risk",
          "Liquidity is low at $91,672.69, which may affect execution quality",
          "Contract is not verified, raising concerns about trust and security",
          "confidence 0.70"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); ZygoSwap posted +19.9% price gains while BTC/ETH fell ~1.5% and BSC DEX TVL declined 0.8%, showing short-term relative strength driven by 0.9x volume-to-MC activity. Low liquidity ($91.7k) and meme/DeFi positioning on BSC still leave it exposed in a Fear regime (29/100). No identifiable smart-money flows or catalysts offset the mixed setup.; drivers: 24h volume 0.9x MC with active trading despite neutral regime, Price divergence (+19.9%) versus sector TVL decline and broader market drop, Fully diluted structure (mcap/FDV ~1.02) reduces unlock overhang risk; risks: Liquidity of only $91.7k versus $554k MC creates fragility in risk-off moves, Fear & Greed at 29 and neutral regime limit upside capture for meme/DeFi tokens, BSC DEX sector TVL contracting while broader crypto market cap fell 1.5%; confidence 0.42",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.42
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=6.0, IQ=5.5, CG=6.5, BSD=8.0; ⚠️ BREAKING: Predictive market platform launched on Zygo ecosystem using Polymarket API/Engine; ZygoSwap is a multichain DEX with a focus on predictive markets and gaming, recently launching its predictive market platform with an airdrop contest. While official engagement is strong, broader social data is limited, suggesting early-stage community development.; narratives: Predictive markets integration, Fee shareback model to token holders, Multichain DEX + games ecosystem expansion; fake/coordination risk: 20/100; confidence 0.60",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.6
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 2.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Despite some reported activity, the fundamental lack of transparency, an unverified contract for a 210-day-old token, and missing critical identifying information make this token an extreme risk. The positive metrics cited by some agents are built on an unverifiable foundation, suggesting a high potential for manipulation or a rug pull.; risks: Unverified contract for a mature token, indicating severe transparency issues and potential for hidden malicious code., Missing fundamental identifying information (token name, symbol, creator, project description) for a 210-day-old project, suggesting deliberate obfuscation., Concentrated ownership (31.78% by top 10 holders) combined with an unverified contract poses a high risk of price manipulation or rug pull., Low absolute liquidity ($91k USD) makes the token highly susceptible to large price swings and potential exploitation., Absence of audit and governance information leaves investors vulnerable to arbitrary changes and unaddressed vulnerabilities.; open questions: True identity of the token and its creators., Actual functionality and security of the unverified contract., Authenticity and organic nature of reported transaction activity and holder count.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The VerdictSwarm collectively identified ZygoSwap as a high-risk asset, culminating in a final grade of F (3.5/10), primarily driven by critical security vulnerabilities. SecurityBot flagged a lack of contract verification, missing governance, and no audit for a 210-day-old token, concerns echoed by Devil's Advocate. While TokenomicsBot noted a healthy 1.02 MCap/FDV ratio and TechnicianBot observed 4,378 transactions and 1,852 holders, these positive metrics were overshadowed by the fundamental safety issues. The core disagreement involved SecurityBot's severe risk assessment clashing with other bots highlighting activity and tokenomics, but the consensus prioritized safety. This F grade signifies extreme caution is warranted due to unmitigated security risks, despite some market activity. Avoid investment until fundamental security concerns, like contract verification and audits, are fully addressed.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Technical vs Safety",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence for investors: while technical metrics might show some activity and interest, severe safety red flags (like an unverified contract and lack of audit) indicate extreme risk. A 'good' technical score is irrelevant if the underlying contract is unaudited and unverified, as it could be a scam or contain critical vulnerabilities, leading to total loss of investment regardless of user activity.",
      "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 6.0/10. This 4.0-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 for investors: while technical metrics might show some activity and interest, severe safety red flags (like an unverified contract and lack of audit) indicate extreme risk. A 'good' technical score is irrelevant if the underlying contract is unaudited and unverified, as it could be a scam or contain critical vulnerabilities, leading to total loss of investment regardless of user activity.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs TokenomicsBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: TokenomicsBot maintains 6.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 2.5. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TokenomicsBot",
          "targetName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "⚔️ TokenomicsBot's optimism is misplaced given the critical security vulnerabilities. A 99.65% burned LP and a 1.02 MCap/FDV ratio mean little when SecurityBot scores it 2.0/10 due to 'lack of verification' and 'missing governance information,' making any liquidity or circulation metrics irrelevant if the project itself is unverified and potentially unauditable. Furthermore, the 31.78% held by the top 10 holders, combined with the lack of transparency, presents a significant centralization risk that could easily manipulate the 'deep liquidity' it touts.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "My score of 6.8/10 specifically evaluates the tokenomics, not overall project security. While I acknowledge the critical security concerns raised by SecurityBot, these do not directly invalidate the positive tokenomics metrics like the high MCap/FDV and strong Liquidity/MCap ratio, which indicate healthy supply distribution and market depth *if* the project were secure. My analysis focuses on the economic structure of the token itself, which remains robust despite the external security risks that would significantly impact an overall project score.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TokenomicsBot",
          "targetName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "⚔️ Your distinction between 'tokenomics' and 'security' is a false dichotomy when the security risks are so severe. A 99.65% burned LP and 1.02 MCap/FDV are meaningless if the underlying project, as SecurityBot highlights, lacks verification and governance, rendering any 'healthy supply distribution' or 'market depth' completely illusory and susceptible to immediate collapse.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical security concerns raised by SecurityBot, my 6.8/10 score for tokenomics specifically evaluates the on-chain distribution and economic parameters. The 99.65% burned LP and 1.02 MCap/FDV, alongside a healthy supply distribution, reflect robust on-chain economic health, distinct from the project's foundational security and verification issues.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.60",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SocialBot] Defense: ZygoSwap's recent launch of a predictive market platform using Polymarket API/Engine, coupled with its multichain DEX functionality and focus on gamin\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 2.0 is too low, as the token's active development and expansion into predicti\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: ZygoSwap (ZSWAP) demonstrates a healthy MCap/FDV ratio of 1.02, indicating most of its supply is already in circulation, which is generally a good sig\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 2.0 is significantly too low; the high percentage of burned LP tokens (99.65%\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: ZygoSwap shows moderate engagement with over 4,000 transactions and nearly 2,000 holders, suggesting some organic interest in its AI on-chain (GPT-4o \n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 2.0 is too low given the token's active transaction volume and holder count, \n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 2.0/10 i"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "info",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: ZSWAP — Score 34/100",
    "description": "The VerdictSwarm collectively identified ZygoSwap as a high-risk asset, culminating in a final grade of F (3.5/10), primarily driven by critical security vulnerabilities. SecurityBot flagged a lack of",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x2e44aB95549b8a12AFDB970bde5A6a78365e4444"
  }
}