UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x4d526ec9c885469aee508585d99e77daef09da35",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 16.2,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "HolmBase (HOLM) exhibits extremely low liquidity relative to its market cap, highly concentrated holdings, and negligible trading volume, indicating a high risk of illiquidity and potential for price manipulation.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 122,
      "liquidity_usd": 14346.66,
      "holder_count": 131,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Market Cap ($13K) is disproportionately low compared to Liquidity ($14K), suggesting a very illiquid asset.",
      "Top 10 holders control 89.8% of the supply, with 0.0% identified as protocol-controlled, indicating extreme centralization in individual wallets.",
      "24h trading volume is only $120.67, signifying almost no current market interest or activity.",
      "Despite revoked mint and freeze authorities, the severe concentration and lack of liquidity pose significant risks for retail investors.",
      "The token's age of 122 days with such low metrics suggests it has failed to gain traction and is likely abandoned or a slow rug."
    ],
    "confidence": 0
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 131,
    "lp_holder_count": 2,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.898,
    "top10_holders_pct": 89.8,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": "locked",
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
        "value": 89.8
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 89.8
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-21T22:19:20.618774Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 107.6,
  "summary": "HolmBase (HOLM) is a base token with $13K market cap, 122 days old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, weak technical fundamentals. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0.01,
    "name": "HolmBase",
    "symbol": "HOLM",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 1.393e-7,
    "mcap": 13490,
    "market_cap": 13490,
    "volume_24h": 120.67,
    "liquidity_usd": 14346.66,
    "contract_age_days": 122,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 131,
    "top10_holders_pct": 89.8,
    "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": 100,
    "lp_burned_pct": 0,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": 0,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": "UNCX V4 Lock",
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://welcomeholm.fun/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/HolmOnBase",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/HOLMWELCOME"
    },
    "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": 5.8,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "Safety checks; verified source; source available; AI unavailable (AIProviderCallError)",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 1
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); HolmBase (HOLM) exhibits significant structural fragility, characterized by extremely high holder concentration and minimal trading activity. With only three transactions in the last 24 hours and top holders controlling nearly 90% of the supply, the token's liquidity and distribution raise serious concerns about its long-term viability.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified, indicating some level of trust",
          "Price has shown a slight increase of 3.93% in the last 24 hours",
          "Total liquidity of $14,346.66, while thin, is present"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Only 3 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate very low activity",
          "131 holders with top 10 holders controlling 89.8% of the supply suggests extreme concentration",
          "Total trading volume of $120.67 is very low, indicating weak market interest",
          "confidence 0.60"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "HolmBase (HOLM) exhibits significant structural fragility, characterized by extremely high holder concentration and minimal trading activity. With only three transactions in the last 24 hours and top holders controlling nearly 90% of the supply, the token's liquidity and distribution raise serious concerns about its long-term viability.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified, indicating some level of trust.",
          "Price has shown a slight increase of 3.93% in the last 24 hours.",
          "Total liquidity of $14,346.66, while thin, is present.",
          "Market capitalization is equal to fully diluted valuation, suggesting no hidden supply."
        ],
        "negatives": [
          "Only 3 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate very low activity.",
          "131 holders with top 10 holders controlling 89.8% of the supply suggests extreme concentration.",
          "Total trading volume of $120.67 is very low, indicating weak market interest.",
          "Liquidity depth is insufficient for healthy trading, raising concerns about execution quality."
        ],
        "anomaly_flags": [],
        "confidence": 0.6,
        "contract_age_days": 122,
        "tx_count_24h": 3,
        "volume_24h": 120.67,
        "price_usd": 1.393e-7
      }
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; HolmBase exhibits critical red flags for an established token, including extreme holder concentration, negligible on-chain activity, and minimal liquidity. These factors, combined with an unknown mint authority status, create a highly precarious investment scenario with a significant risk of illiquidity, manipulation, or abandonment. The 'neutral' consensus is dangerously optimistic.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (89.8% by top 10) enabling potential manipulation or dump., Near-zero on-chain activity (3 transactions in 24h) indicating project abandonment or lack of interest., Very low liquidity ($14k USD) making any significant sell-off catastrophic for price., Unknown mint renouncement status, posing a risk of arbitrary supply inflation., Minimal daily trading volume ($120) suggesting severe illiquidity and difficulty exiting positions.; open questions: Project description and purpose are unknown., Team status and intentions are unknown., Mint authority renouncement status is unknown.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The token exhibits extremely fragile tokenomics, characterized by a dangerously low holder count (131) and severe ownership concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 89.8% of the supply. Despite a healthy liquidity-to-market cap ratio of 1.06, the trading volume is negligible at just $121 in 24 hours, indicating a near-total lack of market activity and interest. This combination points to a high-risk, illiquid asset with characteristics of a dormant or abandoned project.; unlock risk 0/100; + Fully Diluted Supply: The MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 indicates no future token inflation or dilution risk from unissued supply., Locked Liquidity: 100% of the liquidity pool is locked via UNCX, reducing the risk of a rug pull., High Liquidity Ratio: The Liquidity/MCap ratio is strong at 1.06, meaning there is sufficient liquidity relative to the current valuation.; risks: Extreme Ownership Concentration: Top 10 holders control 89.8%, posing a massive risk of price manipulation and centralization., Critically Low Trading Volume: $121 in 24h volume for a $13.5k market cap indicates a completely illiquid and inactive market., Very Small Holder Base: Only 131 holders after 122 days suggests a failure to attract any community or investor interest., High Risk of Abandonment: The combination of low holders, negligible volume, and high concentration strongly suggests the project may be dormant or abandoned.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "The token exhibits extremely fragile tokenomics, characterized by a dangerously low holder count (131) and severe ownership concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 89.8% of the supply. Despite a healthy liquidity-to-market cap ratio of 1.06, the trading volume is negligible at just $121 in 24 hours, indicating a near-total lack of market activity and interest. This combination points to a high-risk, illiquid asset with characteristics of a dormant or abandoned project.",
        "key_risks": [
          "Extreme Ownership Concentration: Top 10 holders control 89.8%, posing a massive risk of price manipulation and centralization.",
          "Critically Low Trading Volume: $121 in 24h volume for a $13.5k market cap indicates a completely illiquid and inactive market.",
          "Very Small Holder Base: Only 131 holders after 122 days suggests a failure to attract any community or investor interest.",
          "High Risk of Abandonment: The combination of low holders, negligible volume, and high concentration strongly suggests the project may be dormant or abandoned.",
          "Price Volatility Risk: The thin market means any small trade can cause extreme price swings, and a single large holder selling could collapse the price entirely."
        ],
        "positives": [
          "Fully Diluted Supply: The MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 indicates no future token inflation or dilution risk from unissued supply.",
          "Locked Liquidity: 100% of the liquidity pool is locked via UNCX, reducing the risk of a rug pull.",
          "High Liquidity Ratio: The Liquidity/MCap ratio is strong at 1.06, meaning there is sufficient liquidity relative to the current valuation.",
          "Verified Contract: The contract is verified on-chain, providing basic transparency."
        ],
        "unlock_risk": 0,
        "distribution_assessment": "Distribution is extremely poor and centralized. With only 131 holders and the top 10 controlling nearly 90% of the supply, the token is highly susceptible to price manipulation and has failed to achieve any meaningful decentralization. The low transaction count (3 in 24h) further confirms the lack of a genuine, active holder base, suggesting the token is largely controlled by a small, inactive group.",
        "comparable_models": {
          "successful": [],
          "failed": [
            "Micro-cap tokens with high initial concentration and no follow-on community growth or trading volume."
          ]
        },
        "confidence": 0.8,
        "mcap": 13490,
        "fdv": 13490,
        "mcap_fdv_ratio": 1,
        "top10_holders_pct": 89.8,
        "holder_count": 131,
        "liquidity_usd": 14346.66,
        "liquidity_mcap_ratio": 1.0635
      }
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); HOLM exhibits extreme fragility in the risk-off regime with Fear & Greed at 29, featuring negligible 24h volume (0.0x mcap) and liquidity barely exceeding mcap, alongside 89.8% supply in top 10 holders among just 131 total. No sector categorization, catalysts, social presence, or on-chain momentum differentiates it positively from microcap peers, implying severe downside vulnerability and potential for illiquidity-driven evaporation. In worsening sentiment, it will likely underperform BTC/ETH and Base ecosystem tokens due to concentration risks over any broad beta.; drivers: Verified contract on Base chain, +3.93% 24h price despite regime, FDV equals mcap (no dilution overhang); risks: Extreme illiquidity (volume 0.0x mcap, thin order book), 89.8% supply in top 10 holders (dump risk), Risk-off regime amplifies microcap fragility; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "HOLM exhibits extreme fragility in the risk-off regime with Fear & Greed at 29, featuring negligible 24h volume (0.0x mcap) and liquidity barely exceeding mcap, alongside 89.8% supply in top 10 holders among just 131 total. No sector categorization, catalysts, social presence, or on-chain momentum differentiates it positively from microcap peers, implying severe downside vulnerability and potential for illiquidity-driven evaporation. In worsening sentiment, it will likely underperform BTC/ETH and Base ecosystem tokens due to concentration risks over any broad beta.",
        "key_drivers": [
          "Verified contract on Base chain",
          "+3.93% 24h price despite regime",
          "FDV equals mcap (no dilution overhang)"
        ],
        "key_risks": [
          "Extreme illiquidity (volume 0.0x mcap, thin order book)",
          "89.8% supply in top 10 holders (dump risk)",
          "Risk-off regime amplifies microcap fragility",
          "No catalysts, social data, or sector context"
        ],
        "correlations": {
          "btc": "high downside beta (illiquid microcaps amplify BTC drawdowns)",
          "eth": "high downside beta (Base exposure ties to ETH liquidity)",
          "rates": "neutral (no RWA/infra linkage)",
          "dxy": "risk-off sensitive (strengthens USD flight to safety)"
        },
        "sector_outlook": "Unknown/Other microcap - highly exposed, no relative strength vs Base or broader alts",
        "confidence": 0.8,
        "volume_24h": 120.67,
        "mcap": 13490
      }
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.0, IQ=2.0, CG=1.0, BSD=9.0; Extremely low social activity on X/Twitter. Only one recent low-engagement mention found, linking to official TG. Official account shows no recent activity. Minimal social health in risk-off market.; fake/coordination risk: 2/100; confidence 0.35",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.35,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "Extremely low social activity on X/Twitter. Only one recent low-engagement mention found, linking to official TG. Official account shows no recent activity. Minimal social health in risk-off market.",
        "fake_engagement_risk": 2,
        "confidence": 0.35,
        "sub_dimensions": {
          "organic_engagement": {
            "score": 1,
            "rationale": "Only one recent post with 8 likes; no broader discussion.",
            "weight": 0.4
          },
          "influencer_quality": {
            "score": 2,
            "rationale": "Single mention from small account @big7_onchain; no notable influencers.",
            "weight": 0.25
          },
          "community_growth": {
            "score": 1,
            "rationale": "No evidence of growth, mentions, or momentum; pre-fetched metrics absent.",
            "weight": 0.2
          },
          "bot_spam_detection": {
            "score": 9,
            "rationale": "No spam or bot signals detected; activity too low for fakes.",
            "weight": 0.15
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm overwhelmingly agreed that HolmBase (HOLM) is an extremely high-risk asset, plagued by severe holder concentration (89.8% by top 10 holders), negligible trading volume ($121 in 24 hours), and minimal market activity, as highlighted by TechnicianBot, TokenomicsBot, and MacroBot. A key disagreement emerged between SecurityBot's neutral safety assessment (5.8/10) regarding contract verification and the bearish outlook from DevilsAdvocate and others, who emphasized the token's fundamental market fragility despite apparent code soundness. The final F grade reflects the critical lack of liquidity and distribution, making it highly susceptible to manipulation and illiquidity. This token presents an extremely precarious investment scenario. Avoid this token due to its extreme centralization and lack of market viability.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence between a token's apparent security and its fundamental market viability. While SafetyBot indicates the contract code might be sound and verifiable, TechnicianBot reveals severe centralization and illiquidity, rendering the token highly susceptible to manipulation and practically untradable for most investors.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 2.0/10 while Safety scored 5.8/10. This 3.8-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 a critical divergence between a token's apparent security and its fundamental market viability. While SafetyBot indicates the contract code might be sound and verifiable, TechnicianBot reveals severe centralization and illiquidity, rendering the token highly susceptible to manipulation and practically untradable for most investors.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 2.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 'neutral' 5.8/10 is dangerously naive; basic 'safety checks' like contract verification are irrelevant when the token's fundamental structure is unsafe. With 89.8% of supply controlled by the top 10 holders and only $121 in 24-hour trading volume, this token is a manipulation risk and illiquidity trap, not a neutral investment, regardless of source availability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "My 5.8/10 Safety score specifically reflects the *smart contract's* integrity and transparency, confirmed by 'Safety checks' and 'verified source' indicating no immediate code vulnerabilities. While the Devil's Advocate correctly identifies significant market risks like high holder centralization and low liquidity, these pertain to market manipulation and investment viability, which are distinct from the inherent safety of the contract's code itself. My score is justified for contract-level safety, but these market factors would heavily influence a broader 'Risk' or 'Market Health' assessment.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Security's narrow focus on smart contract integrity misses the forest for the trees; a technically sound contract is irrelevant if 89.8% holder concentration and $121 volume make the asset inherently unsafe from market manipulation and illiquidity. These market-based risks directly undermine any perceived 'safety' from code verification, as they represent a more immediate and significant threat to investor funds than theoretical code vulnerabilities.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "While acknowledging the significant risks posed by 89.8% holder concentration and $121 volume, my 5.8/10 score specifically assesses the *technical security* of the smart contract itself, which is distinct from market manipulation or liquidity risks. A robust, audited contract (as implied by a moderate security score) provides foundational protection against vulnerabilities like reentrancy or overflow, even if market dynamics present other challenges.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "high",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "high_holder_concentration",
      "message": "high_holder_concentration"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO_PLUS",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: HOLM — Score 16/100",
    "description": "The swarm overwhelmingly agreed that HolmBase (HOLM) is an extremely high-risk asset, plagued by severe holder concentration (89.8% by top 10 holders), negligible trading volume ($121 in 24 hours), an",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x4d526ec9c885469aee508585d99e77daef09da35"
  }
}