UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x3c8cd0db9a01efa063a7760267b822a129bc7dca",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 36,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 6.5/10 vs swarm average 4.1).\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's perceived on-chain health and its underlying economic structure. While technical indicators might suggest some operational stability, poor tokenomics, particularly high concentration and unlocked liquidity, indicate severe centralization risks and potential for rug pulls or significant price manipulation, making any perceived technical 'goodness' highly precarious for investors.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs TechnicianBot: Compromise: 5.0 → 5.8\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.58\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Based Froc ($FROC) exhibits extremely low social visibility and engagement, with no recent official posts, substantive discussion, or influencer cover\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too high given the token's near-absent social presence, lack of community e\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high as the project's minimal social footprint and lack of credible commu\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 5.0/10 reflects the critical risk of a 100% unlocked liquidity pool, which presents an immediate threat of a rug pull or liquidity drain. \n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 3.0/10 is too low because while the unlocked liquidity is a critical flaw, the t\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low as it undervalues the positive aspects of the token, such as \n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low because it likely over\nMost optimistic: Devil's Advocate (6.5/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Social (3.0/10) — X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 434,
      "liquidity_usd": 88214.6,
      "holder_count": 137092,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token is 434 days old, indicating longevity beyond typical rug pulls.",
      "Liquidity of $88K is 64.7% of the $136K market cap, which is very healthy.",
      "Mint and Freeze authorities are revoked, preventing malicious supply manipulation.",
      "LP is unlocked, which is standard for a decentralized token.",
      "Total holders are 137,092, a substantial number for a token of this market cap and age.",
      "RugCheck data is N/A, which is neutral and doesn't indicate risk."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 137092,
    "lp_holder_count": 7,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.6573,
    "top10_holders_pct": 65.73,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "medium",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
        "value": 65.73
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "medium",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
      "value": 65.73
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-23T22:31:07.731438Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 661.61,
  "summary": "Based Froc (FROC) is a well-established base token with $136K market cap, 1+ years old.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0.07,
    "name": "Based Froc",
    "symbol": "FROC",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.00000136,
    "mcap": 135725,
    "market_cap": 135725,
    "volume_24h": 5764.62,
    "liquidity_usd": 88214.6,
    "contract_age_days": 434,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 137092,
    "top10_holders_pct": 65.73,
    "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": {
      "website": "http://frocofficial.com/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/frocisbased?s=21&t=FgufT8tZ22ZCFlECLjVjuw",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/FROCofficial"
    },
    "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": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); Based Froc (FROC) exhibits a mixed on-chain health profile. While the token has a substantial holder base and verified contract, the high concentration among top holders and low transaction count indicate potential fragility in liquidity and activity quality.",
        "positives": [
          "Verified contract with 434 days of activity",
          "Large holder base of 137,092",
          "Total liquidity of $88,214.60"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 65.73% of the supply, indicating high concentration risk",
          "Low transaction count (18 in the last 24 hours) suggests limited trading activity",
          "Total volume reported as $5,764.62, which is low for a mature token",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); Based Froc (FROC) is currently positioned weakly within the meme coin sector, showing divergence from the overall market trends. With low liquidity and minimal community engagement, it is vulnerable to further downside if risk sentiment worsens.; drivers: Meme coin appeal may attract speculative interest in a risk-on environment., Potential for community-driven marketing or viral trends, typical for meme tokens., Base blockchain ecosystem may see growth if broader adoption occurs.; risks: Extremely low trading volume indicates illiquidity, making it fragile in downturns., High concentration of holders (top 10 own 65.73%) raises concerns about sell pressure., Lack of community engagement and trader sentiment signals indicate low interest.; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); Based Froc (FROC) has a mixed security posture. While the contract is verified and has been operational for over a year, there are significant risks associated with liquidity control and holder concentration. The lack of a formal audit and the unlocked liquidity pool raise concerns about potential exploitation.; CRITICAL: Unlocked liquidity pool poses a risk of liquidity drain.; risks: 100% unlocked liquidity pool, which poses a risk of liquidity drain., High concentration of token supply among the top 10 holders (65.73%), indicating potential for price manipulation., No formal audit available, which increases uncertainty regarding the contract's security., The deployer retains control over certain functions, which could be exploited if the deployer acts maliciously.; confidence 0.60",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.6
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.0, IQ=5.0, CG=2.0, BSD=3.0; Based Froc ($FROC) appears to be a meme token with extremely low social visibility and engagement, lacking any discernible narrative momentum or credible community activity. The absence of recent official posts, substantive discussion, and any influencer coverage points to a project with minimal organic traction.; narratives: meme, base ecosystem, frog-themed; fake/coordination risk: 75/100; signals: Only spam promotional replies to older posts (pre-April 16) found, no substantive community discussion; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); Based Froc exhibits extremely high concentration with the top 10 holders controlling 65.73% of the supply, posing significant centralization risk. While the MCap/FDV ratio of 1.074 suggests minimal future dilution, the 100% unlocked LP and limited exchange breadth raise concerns about liquidity durability and potential manipulation, despite a healthy Liquidity/MCap ratio of 0.65.; unlock risk 90/100; + High Liquidity/MCap ratio (0.65) provides good depth relative to current valuation., MCap/FDV ratio of 1.074 indicates almost all supply is circulating, with no significant future dilution from unlocks., Relatively high holder count (137,092) suggests some retail interest, despite concentration.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (Top 10 holders own 65.73%) leading to potential market manipulation., 100% of LP is unlocked, creating a high risk of liquidity rug pull., Limited exchange breadth (only Uniswap V3 on Base) makes the token vulnerable to single-venue issues., Low 24-hour trading volume ($5,765) relative to liquidity, indicating low organic trading interest.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [BULL contrarian]; Based Froc, despite its meme coin classification and high top-holder concentration, demonstrates surprising resilience and organic adoption for its age and market cap. The exceptionally high holder count, coupled with a clean, immutable contract, suggests a robust community foundation that is being overlooked by a bearish consensus focused on generic meme coin risks. This token has survived and grown for over a year, indicating a stronger underlying value proposition than its current valuation suggests.; risks: High top 10 holder concentration (65.73%) poses potential for significant sell-offs., Low 24-hour trading volume ($5,764.62) makes it susceptible to price volatility and manipulation., Lack of LP lock data creates uncertainty regarding liquidity stability., Limited social presence and engagement could hinder future growth and adoption., Meme coin nature inherently carries high speculative risk and dependency on community sentiment.; open questions: Exact distribution and activity of the 137,092 holders beyond the top 10., Specific reasons for the MCAP > FDV discrepancy., The true nature of the 'concentration' – is it active manipulation or inactive initial distribution?; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 6.5/10 vs swarm average 4.1).\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's perceived on-chain health and its underlying economic structure. While technical indicators might suggest some operational stability, poor tokenomics, particularly high concentration and unlocked liquidity, indicate severe centralization risks and potential for rug pulls or significant price manipulation, making any perceived technical 'goodness' highly precarious for investors.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs TechnicianBot: Compromise: 5.0 → 5.8\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.58\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Based Froc ($FROC) exhibits extremely low social visibility and engagement, with no recent official posts, substantive discussion, or influencer cover\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too high given the token's near-absent social presence, lack of community e\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high as the project's minimal social footprint and lack of credible commu\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 5.0/10 reflects the critical risk of a 100% unlocked liquidity pool, which presents an immediate threat of a rug pull or liquidity drain. \n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 3.0/10 is too low because while the unlocked liquidity is a critical flaw, the t\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low as it undervalues the positive aspects of the token, such as \n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low because it likely over\nMost optimistic: Devil's Advocate (6.5/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Social (3.0/10) — X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Technical vs Tokenomics",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's perceived on-chain health and its underlying economic structure. While technical indicators might suggest some operational stability, poor tokenomics, particularly high concentration and unlocked liquidity, indicate severe centralization risks and potential for rug pulls or significant price manipulation, making any perceived technical 'goodness' highly precarious for investors.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Tokenomics scored 2.5/10 while Technical scored 5.0/10. This 2.5-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 highlights a critical divergence between a token's perceived on-chain health and its underlying economic structure. While technical indicators might suggest some operational stability, poor tokenomics, particularly high concentration and unlocked liquidity, indicate severe centralization risks and potential for rug pulls or significant price manipulation, making any perceived technical 'goodness' highly precarious for investors.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs TechnicianBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 5.0 → 5.8",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "⚔️ TechnicianBot's 'large holder base' is a mirage when 65.73% is concentrated in just 10 wallets, making the token highly susceptible to manipulation and rug pull risks, especially with an unlocked liquidity pool. The 434 days of activity and low transaction count (18 in 24h) highlight stagnation, not resilience, for a token with such a 'large' holder count.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the significant concentration risk (65.73% in top 10) and low transaction volume (18 in 24h) which indeed highlight fragility and limited current activity, the 5.0 score reflects a balanced view. The token's 434 days of verified contract activity and substantial holder count (137,092) demonstrate a degree of established presence and distribution, preventing a lower score despite the clear technical vulnerabilities in liquidity and distribution quality.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "⚔️ The Technician's 'established presence' and 'distribution' are precisely what make the 65.73% concentration in 10 wallets and 18 daily transactions so damning; a large holder count with such low activity and high centralization points to widespread dormancy and susceptibility to a coordinated dump, not resilience. The 434 days of activity merely confirm prolonged stagnation, where the token has failed to convert its 'substantial holder count' into meaningful, decentralized engagement or trans...",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "content": "The Devil's Advocate's emphasis on widespread dormancy, despite high centralization, implies a significant untapped user base rather than immediate abandonment, suggesting potential for future activation.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.58",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Based Froc ($FROC) exhibits extremely low social visibility and engagement, with no recent official posts, substantive discussion, or influencer cover\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too high given the token's near-absent social presence, lack of community e\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high as the project's minimal social footprint and lack of credible commu\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 5.0/10 reflects the critical risk of a 100% unlocked liquidity pool, which presents an immediate threat of a rug pull or liquidity drain. \n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 3.0/10 is too low because while the unlocked liquidity is a critical flaw, the t\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low as it undervalues the positive aspects of the token, such as \n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score of 2.5/10 is too low because it likely over"
    }
  ],
  "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",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: FROC — Score 36/100",
    "description": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 6.5/10 vs swarm average 4.1).\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x3c8cd0db9a01efa063a7760267b822a129bc7dca"
  }
}