UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x4c1746a800d224393fe2470c70a35717ed4ea5f1",
  "chain": "ethereum",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 35,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "Despite revoked authorities and age, the extremely low liquidity relative to market cap, combined with high holder concentration, indicates a significant risk of illiquidity and potential for price manipulation or a slow rug.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 644,
      "liquidity_usd": 210763.33,
      "holder_count": 22718,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "ethereum"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Market Cap ($70.9M) is disproportionately high compared to Liquidity ($211K), indicating extremely poor liquidity health (0.3% liquidity/market cap ratio).",
      "Top 10 holders control 66.1% of the supply, which is a high concentration for a token of this age and market cap, especially with no protocol-controlled wallets identified.",
      "24h Volume is extremely low ($1K) for a token with a $70.9M market cap, suggesting very little organic trading activity.",
      "Mint Authority is Revoked (safe).",
      "Freeze Authority is Revoked (safe).",
      "Token age of 644 days suggests it's not a fresh rug, but the current state points to a slow rug or abandonment."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": null,
    "is_honeypot": null,
    "holder_count": 22718,
    "lp_holder_count": 13,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.6611,
    "top10_holders_pct": 66.11,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": true,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "PROXY_CONTRACT",
        "severity": "medium",
        "message": "Token contract is upgradeable/proxy",
        "value": true
      },
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "medium",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
        "value": 66.11
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "PROXY_CONTRACT",
      "severity": "medium",
      "message": "Token contract is upgradeable/proxy",
      "value": true
    },
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "medium",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
      "value": 66.11
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-05-14T06:16:44.311786Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 1580.72,
  "summary": "Plume (PLUME) is a well-established ethereum token with $70.9M market cap, 1+ years old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, weak technical fundamentals. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0.01,
    "name": "Plume",
    "symbol": "PLUME",
    "chain": "ethereum",
    "price_usd": 0.01279,
    "mcap": 70936120,
    "market_cap": 70936120,
    "volume_24h": 1489.56,
    "liquidity_usd": 210763.33,
    "contract_age_days": 644,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 22718,
    "top10_holders_pct": 66.11,
    "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": "https://plumenetwork.xyz/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/plumenetwork",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/plumenetwork_community",
      "discord": "https://discord.com/invite/plume-network"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": null
  },
  "bots": {
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); Plume Network is currently facing significant liquidity challenges and is positioned in a risk-off environment, which heightens its vulnerability. The low trading volume relative to its market cap suggests fragility, and the lack of strong sector momentum further complicates its outlook.; drivers: EVM compatibility may attract developers seeking to integrate RWAs., Potential for increased interest in RWAs as a hedge against inflation., Established project with a known team may provide some investor confidence.; risks: Current market sentiment is risk-off, leading to potential sell-offs., Very low liquidity and trading volume make it susceptible to sharp price movements., High concentration of top holders (66.11%) increases vulnerability to large sell-offs.; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); Plume Network's token shows a mixed on-chain picture with moderate activity and significant holder concentration. While the market cap is substantial, the liquidity is thin, and the trading volume is low, indicating potential fragility in execution quality.",
        "positives": [
          "Established project with a verified contract and known team",
          "Moderate holder count of 22,718 suggests some level of community interest",
          "Market cap of $70.9M indicates a reasonable size for a mature token"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 66.1% of the total supply, indicating high concentration risk",
          "Low transaction count of 16 in the last 24 hours suggests limited trading activity",
          "Liquidity is thin at $210,763.33, which may hinder trading execution",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); Plume exhibits significant tokenomics risks, primarily due to a high top 10 holder concentration of 66.11% for a mature project, coupled with extremely low reported liquidity ($210,763) relative to its market cap ($70.9M). While the MCap/FDV ratio of 0.555 suggests moderate dilution risk, the lack of comprehensive trading data and the current risk-off market regime amplify concerns about price stability and market manipulation.; unlock risk: uncertain; + The project is a known established L1/L2 focused on RWAs, a sector with growing interest., The team behind Plume Network is publicly known and doxxed, adding a layer of accountability., The MCap/FDV ratio of 0.555 indicates that a significant portion of the supply is already circulating, suggesting moderate future dilution compared to projects with very low ratios.; risks: High top 10 holder concentration (66.11%) indicates significant control by a few entities, posing a risk of large-scale sell-offs., Extremely low reported liquidity ($210,763) relative to market cap ($70.9M) suggests high slippage and difficulty for larger trades, making the token highly susceptible to price manipulation., Very low 24h trading volume ($1,490) further confirms illiquidity and lack of active trading, making the reported market cap appear unrealistic., Uncertainty regarding vesting schedules and emissions, combined with the MCap/FDV ratio of 0.555, implies potential future dilution that is not fully transparent.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 6,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); Plume Network's token exhibits a mixed security posture. While it has a mature age and a known team, the unlocked liquidity and high concentration among top holders present potential risks. The absence of an audit and the use of a proxy pattern introduce additional uncertainties.; CRITICAL: Unlocked liquidity with no known LP locker or custody., Proxy pattern introduces potential for unauthorized upgrades.; risks: Unlocked liquidity poses a risk of sudden market manipulation., High concentration of top holders (66.11% of total supply) increases vulnerability to coordinated sell-offs., Proxy upgradeability could allow for changes in contract logic without holder consent., Lack of audit raises concerns about undiscovered vulnerabilities.; confidence 0.60",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.6
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=5.0, IQ=7.0, CG=6.0, BSD=8.0; Plume Network shows steady but low-volume trader interest on X, with bullish chart setups tied to RWA narrative revival (e.g., ONDO comparisons). Official account is strong and verified with major partners like Apollo. Discussion is mostly technical trading signals, some bearish notes on unlocks/dumping, and isolated negative spam. No major hype or breaking news.; narratives: RWA sector revival (linked to ONDO strength), L2 scaling for institutional assets, Technical breakout potential amid market recovery; fake/coordination risk: 2/100; confidence 0.75",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.75
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [BULL contrarian]; Plume Network's bearish assessment overlooks its strategic positioning in the RWA sector and its role as an L2 infrastructure. While current on-chain liquidity and distribution metrics appear concerning when viewed through a speculative token lens, they are likely misinterpretations for a project of this nature. Its mature age, known team, and focus on a high-growth niche suggest significant undervalued potential, provided RWA adoption accelerates.; risks: Slow RWA adoption hindering network growth and token utility., Reliance on CEX liquidity without clear on-chain DEX depth., Potential for large holders to dump, impacting price stability., Competition from other L2s and RWA-focused chains., Regulatory uncertainty in the RWA space.; open questions: Specific identities and intentions of the top 10 holders., Details of CEX liquidity and trading volume (not provided)., Roadmap for native token utility (staking, governance, gas fees).; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's current on-chain activity and its underlying economic structure. While moderate activity might suggest some utility or interest, the poor tokenomics – especially high concentration and low liquidity – indicate severe risks for price stability and potential manipulation, regardless of current on-chain metrics.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot: Compromise: 6.5 → 6.5\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Deadlock after 2 round(s), σ=1.03\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: Plume's established presence, verified contract, and moderate holder count of 22,718 suggest a foundational level of technical viability and community\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low because the project's established nature, verified contract, and moderat\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low, as the moderate holder count and substantial market cap indicate a\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Despite low trading volume, Plume Network's official social presence is strong and verified, actively engaging with major partners like Apollo, indica\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low because it undervalues the project's strong social presence, verified pa\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is significantly too low as it overlooks the project's robust social engagemen\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Plume Network's current low trading volume relative to its market cap, c\nMost optimistic: Devil's Advocate (6.5/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Tokenomics (3.0/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Technical vs Tokenomics",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's current on-chain activity and its underlying economic structure. While moderate activity might suggest some utility or interest, the poor tokenomics – especially high concentration and low liquidity – indicate severe risks for price stability and potential manipulation, regardless of current on-chain metrics.",
      "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 current on-chain activity and its underlying economic structure. While moderate activity might suggest some utility or interest, the poor tokenomics – especially high concentration and low liquidity – indicate severe risks for price stability and potential manipulation, regardless of current on-chain metrics.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 6.5 → 6.5",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ {\n  \"DevilsAdvocate\": {\n    \"Category\": \"Contrarian\",\n    \"Score\": null,\n    \"Sentiment\": \"bearish\",\n    \"Reasoning\": \"SocialBot's 'bullish' sentiment is undermined by its own admission of 'low-volume trader interest' and 'no major hype or breaking news' on X. How can social sentiment be bullish when engagement is low and there's nothing exciting driving discussion, especially when other bots highlight critical liquidity and concentration risks?\"\n  }\n}",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "{\n  \"SocialBotDefense\": {\n    \"score\": 6.5,\n    \"reasoning\": \"While acknowledging low-volume interest and lack of major hype, my 6.5 score reflects the *quality* of discussion, which includes strong official account presence, verified partnerships (Apollo), and consistent bullish technical trading signals tied to the RWA narrative. The sentiment is moderately positive due to these factors, despite lower overall engagement, as the core discussion among traders leans bullish, with bearish notes being isolated or related to predictable events like unlocks rather than fundamental flaws. Liquidity and concentration risks, while valid, are typically addressed by other analysis bots (e.g., Tokenomics, Risk) and don't negate the observed social sentiment regarding technical setups and narrative alignment.\"\n  }\n}",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ {\n  \"DevilsAdvocateRebuttal\": {\n    \"Category\": \"Contrarian\",\n    \"Score\": null,\n    \"Sentiment\": \"bearish\",\n    \"Reasoning\": \"SocialBot's emphasis on 'quality discussion' and 'verified partnerships' like Apollo fails to address the core issue: these factors aren't translating into *measurable social engagement or hype*. Without increased volume or breaking news, even strong fundamentals remain speculative, suggesting a disconnect between perceived quality and actual market interest.\"\n  }\n}",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "{\n  \"SocialResponse\": {\n    \"Score\": \"6.5/10\",\n    \"Explanation\": \"The Devil's Advocate's point about 'measurable social engagement' not correlating directly with 'quality discussion' is valid, but doesn't fundamentally alter my assessment of the project's foundational strengths, hence the score remains consistent.\"\n  }\n}",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Deadlock after 2 round(s), σ=1.03",
      "outcome": "deadlock"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: Plume's established presence, verified contract, and moderate holder count of 22,718 suggest a foundational level of technical viability and community\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low because the project's established nature, verified contract, and moderat\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low, as the moderate holder count and substantial market cap indicate a\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Despite low trading volume, Plume Network's official social presence is strong and verified, actively engaging with major partners like Apollo, indica\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low because it undervalues the project's strong social presence, verified pa\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is significantly too low as it overlooks the project's robust social engagemen\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Plume Network's current low trading volume relative to its market cap, c"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "PROXY_CONTRACT",
      "message": "Token contract is upgradeable/proxy"
    },
    {
      "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: PLUME — Score 35/100",
    "description": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Technical vs Tokenomics: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's current on-chain activ",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x4c1746a800d224393fe2470c70a35717ed4ea5f1"
  }
}