UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x32e0f9d26d1e33625742a52620cc76c1130efde6",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 45,
  "grade": "D",
  "risk_level": "HIGH",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "Despite revoked authorities and locked LP, the token's reported $0.00 price, extremely low trading volume, and high holder concentration indicate it is likely abandoned or illiquid, making it a poor investment.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 640,
      "liquidity_usd": 92956.45,
      "holder_count": 92533,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Reported price is $0.00, suggesting no market value or a data error.",
      "24h trading volume is extremely low ($6.08) for a token with a $90K market cap, indicating severe illiquidity.",
      "Top 10 holders control 75.0% of the supply, which is very high for a token with 92K holders, suggesting potential for price manipulation or large dumps.",
      "Market cap ($90K) is roughly equal to liquidity ($93K), which is generally healthy, but overshadowed by other severe issues.",
      "Token is 640 days old, but current activity suggests it has been abandoned or is no longer actively traded.",
      "Mint and Freeze authorities are revoked, and LP is locked, which are positive security features, but do not mitigate the fundamental lack of value and liquidity."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 92533,
    "lp_holder_count": 8,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.7504000000000001,
    "top10_holders_pct": 75.04,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": "locked",
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "medium",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
        "value": 75.04
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "medium",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
      "value": 75.04
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-20T20:23:06.286078Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 697.17,
  "summary": "BASED (BASED) is a well-established base token with $90K market cap, 1+ years old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, limited liquidity. Overall verdict: D — high risk — significant concerns identified.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0,
    "name": "BASED",
    "symbol": "BASED",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.0000012,
    "mcap": 90004,
    "market_cap": 90004,
    "volume_24h": 6.08,
    "liquidity_usd": 92956.45,
    "contract_age_days": 640,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 92533,
    "top10_holders_pct": 75.04,
    "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": "locked",
    "lp_locked_pct": 98.83,
    "lp_burned_pct": 0,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": 1.17,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": "UNCX Locker",
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://based.works/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/basedevo",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/based_evo"
    },
    "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": 5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The BASED token exhibits signs of structural fragility, primarily due to high concentration among top holders and low transaction activity. While the contract is verified and has a reasonable holder count, the liquidity is thin, and the trading volume is minimal, indicating potential challenges in execution quality.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified and has been operational for 640 days",
          "A significant number of holders (92,533) suggests some level of community interest",
          "The token has a low price volatility (1.0%) over the past week"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 75.04% of the token supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "Transaction count is low (17 transactions in the last 24 hours), suggesting weak activity",
          "Total liquidity is only $92,956.45, which is thin relative to the holder base",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); BASED, a microcap meme on Base, shows mild divergence with +2.1% price amid Base TVL -5.3% and broader risk-off (Fear & Greed 27), but its tiny $90k MCAP, 0.07x vol/mcap, and 75% top-10 concentration scream fragility in any drawdown. High BTC/ETH beta as a meme amplifies downside vulnerability, with no catalysts or social momentum to offset liquidity risks. In risk-off, it lags peers by dumping harder on sentiment shifts despite today's bounce.; drivers: Price divergence (+2.07% 24h) vs Base TVL decline, 92k holders provide some broad base despite concentration, Mature age (640 days) with verified contract; risks: Extreme illiquidity (vol/mcap ~0.07x, $93k liquidity pool), 75% supply in top-10 holders, prone to dumps, Meme sector high-beta fragility in risk-off (Fear 27); confidence 0.65",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.65
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; The token exhibits critical structural weaknesses, primarily extreme centralization and a severe lack of genuine market activity. While the contract is old and verified, these positives are overshadowed by the high concentration of supply and near-zero daily transactions, suggesting a controlled asset with minimal organic interest. The 'bullish' case is fundamentally weak, relying on superficial metrics while ignoring the high risk of a coordinated dump by large holders.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (75.04% in top 10) poses a severe rug pull/dump risk., Negligible transaction volume (17 in 24h) for a 640-day-old token indicates lack of organic interest and liquidity., Unknown mint authority status presents an unmitigated risk of token dilution., Low market cap ($90k) combined with high concentration makes the token highly susceptible to manipulation., Minimal social and security data coverage for a mature token suggests a lack of transparency or community engagement.; open questions: Status of mint authority (renounced or active)., True active holder count vs. reported total holders., Identity and intentions of the top 10 holders.; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The token exhibits extremely high ownership concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 75.04% of the supply, posing a significant risk of price manipulation and sell-offs. While the liquidity-to-market cap ratio appears strong at 1.033 and most liquidity is locked, the token's value is undermined by its negligible trading volume ($6) and extreme holder concentration, making it structurally fragile despite its large holder base.; unlock risk 1/100; + High Liquidity to Market Cap Ratio: The LP/MCap ratio is 1.033, suggesting sufficient liquidity relative to its current valuation., Locked Liquidity: 98.83% of the liquidity pool is locked via UNCX, reducing the immediate risk of a rug pull., Fully Diluted Supply: The MCap/FDV ratio of 0.998 indicates that nearly the entire supply is in circulation, minimizing future inflationary pressure.; risks: Extreme Ownership Concentration: Top 10 holders control 75.04% of the supply, creating a severe risk of price manipulation and centralized control., Negligible Trading Volume: A 24-hour volume of only $6 for a token with a $90k market cap indicates a complete lack of market activity and interest, making the valuation highly questionable., Single Exchange Exposure: The token is only available on a single DEX (Uniswap V3 on Base), limiting accessibility and liquidity depth., Illiquid Market: Despite a high LP/MCap ratio, the near-zero volume means the liquidity is stagnant and cannot be exited without extreme slippage.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (Claude Sonnet 4.5); BASED is a 640-day-old meme token on Base with verified source code using OpenZeppelin AccessControl patterns. The contract shows no obvious honeypot mechanics, mint functions, or blacklist capabilities in the visible source. LP is 98.83% locked via UNCX, providing strong liquidity security. However, the token exhibits concerning distribution: 92,533 holders but top 10 control 75.04% of supply, indicating extreme concentration risk. Market cap ($90K) and liquidity ($93K) are modest but aligned, suggesting no artificial inflation. The AccessControl pattern allows role-based permissions, but without full source visibility or knowledge of which roles exist and who holds them, residual governance risk remains. The 640-day operating history with no reported exploits is a meaningful de-risking factor. Missing audit, holder flow data, and incomplete source limit confidence. In a risk-off regime with Fear sentiment, the concentration and governance opacity weigh more heavily.; risks: Extreme holder concentration: top 10 wallets control 75.04% of supply, creating significant dump risk and price manipulation potential regardless of LP lock status, AccessControl governance model present but role assignments unknown: contract uses OpenZeppelin role-based access, but without visibility into active roles (MINTER_ROLE, PAUSER_ROLE, etc.) or role holders, residual privilege risk cannot be ruled out, Source code truncated: full contract logic not visible in scan, preventing complete assessment of transfer restrictions, fee mechanisms, or hidden admin functions, No formal audit and minimal third-party security coverage: 640-day history provides some empirical safety, but lack of professional review leaves potential vulnerabilities undetected; confidence 0.62",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.62
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.0, IQ=2.0, CG=3.0, BSD=8.0; Social presence is minimal and stagnant. Official X account @basedevo is inactive with no recent posts, despite 5799 followers and blue verification. Recent $BASED mentions on X refer to newer, unrelated tokens pumping on Base or other chains, causing confusion. No specific buzz, whale activity, or notable endorsements for this 2022-deployed meme coin.; narratives: Base ecosystem meme, Old-school 'based' culture; fake/coordination risk: 1/100; confidence 0.65",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.65
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm agreed BASED exhibits extreme fragility due to severe holder concentration, with TokenomicsBot highlighting 75.04% controlled by the top 10, and negligible trading volume of $6, as noted by TechnicianBot. Key disagreements arose between SecurityBot's higher safety score, citing 98.83% LP locked, and other agents emphasizing market risks from the tiny $90k market cap and lack of organic activity. These data points, alongside SocialBot's finding of an inactive X account, drove the D grade, signifying a highly centralized, illiquid, and risky asset despite its verified, 640-day-old contract. Exercise extreme caution due to high manipulation risk and poor liquidity.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights that a token can be technically secure from contract exploits (SafetyBot's focus) yet still be a poor investment due to market dynamics and liquidity issues (TechnicianBot's focus). Investors face high risk because even if the contract isn't a rug pull, low liquidity and concentrated holdings mean price manipulation and difficulty selling are significant threats.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 4.0/10 while Safety scored 6.5/10. This 2.5-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 can be technically secure from contract exploits (SafetyBot's focus) yet still be a poor investment due to market dynamics and liquidity issues (TechnicianBot's focus). Investors face high risk because even if the contract isn't a rug pull, low liquidity and concentrated holdings mean price manipulation and difficulty selling are significant threats.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 6.5 → 5.2",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 6.5/10 is overly optimistic; the 'strong liquidity security' from locked LP is rendered moot when 75.04% of supply is controlled by just 10 holders in a $90k market cap with negligible $6 trading volume. This isn't just 'concerning distribution' but an extreme economic security vulnerability, making contract-level safety irrelevant against whale manipulation and illiquidity.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "My 6.5/10 score accurately reflects strong contract-level safety, including verified source, no malicious functions, and 98.83% LP locked via UNCX, which prevents rug pulls by the team. While the extreme 75.04% supply concentration by top 10 holders is a significant economic risk, it was already factored into the score's reduction, as contract safety doesn't negate market manipulation risks, but it does secure the underlying asset's integrity.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Security's claim that a 6.5/10 'accurately reflects strong contract-level safety' is misleading; 98.83% LP locked via UNCX provides zero protection against the 75.04% supply concentration by 10 holders in a $90k market cap with $6 trading volume. This extreme centralization means contract safety is irrelevant when whales can dump, rendering the asset illiquid and worthless regardless of 'no malicious functions'.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "The extreme centralization, with 75.04% of the supply concentrated in just 10 holders, significantly increases the risk of market manipulation and undermines the perceived contract safety despite the high LP lock percentage.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Deadlock after 2 round(s), σ=1.24",
      "outcome": "deadlock"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a minor price divergence today, BASED remains highly vulnerable due to its minuscule $90k market cap, extremely low volume-to-market cap ratio\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 6.5/10 is too high; while security is important, it does not mitigate the ext\n  [SocialBot] Defense: The token BASED has a minimal and stagnant social presence, with an inactive official account despite a significant follower count. The recent mention\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: Their score of 4.0 is too high given the lack of engagement and activity surrounding the token, whic\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The token's extreme holder concentration, with the top 10 wallets controlling 75.04% of the supply, creates an inherent risk of price manipulation and\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high because while security aspects might be strong, the fundamental econ\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: Despite extreme concent"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "high_holder_concentration",
      "message": "high_holder_concentration"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO_PLUS",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: BASED — Score 45/100",
    "description": "The swarm agreed BASED exhibits extreme fragility due to severe holder concentration, with TokenomicsBot highlighting 75.04% controlled by the top 10, and negligible trading volume of $6, as noted by ",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x32e0f9d26d1e33625742a52620cc76c1130efde6"
  }
}