UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x4f9fd6be4a90f2620860d680c0d4d5fb53d1a825",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 56,
  "grade": "D",
  "risk_level": "HIGH",
  "flags": [],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 5.2).\n⚖️ Social vs Safety: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between market perception and underlying risk. While strong social metrics and utility may drive short-term price action and investor interest, unaddressed security and governance vulnerabilities expose investors to significant long-term capital loss, regardless of community sentiment.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot: Split verdict: SocialBot maintains 8.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 3.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.92\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The AIXBT token's security is moderately concerning due to significant governance risks, including owner privileges allowing for ownership transfer an\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because it overlooks critical security vulnerabilities like the lack o\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The AIXBT token demonstrates a robust holder count and substantial trading volume, indicating strong market engagement and interest, which supports a \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 8.0 is too high, as the token's technical fundamentals are undermined by high h\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a resilient AI sector, AIXBT's low liquidity and high holder concentration present significant fragility in a risk-off scenario, limiting its \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because strong social metrics alone cannot compensate for critical und\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: My score of 4.2/10 is prima\nMost optimistic: Technician (6.5/10) — AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The AIXBT token exhibits a solid holder base and significant trading volume, indicating a healthy level of activity.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (3.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 542,
      "liquidity_usd": 1596392.06,
      "holder_count": 415643,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token is 542 days old, indicating longevity beyond typical rug pulls.",
      "Market Cap of $27.6M with $1.6M in liquidity provides a healthy liquidity ratio (~5.8% of MCAP).",
      "Total holders are very high at 415,643, suggesting widespread distribution and adoption.",
      "Mint authority is revoked, preventing inflationary attacks.",
      "Freeze authority is revoked, ensuring token transferability.",
      "Top 10 concentration at 51.9% is moderate for a token of this age and holder count, but not critically high given the overall distribution.",
      "RugCheck data is N/A, which is neutral and expected for tokens not specifically covered by their SPL-focused scanner."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 415643,
    "lp_holder_count": 29,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.5189,
    "top10_holders_pct": 51.89,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "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": "2026-04-29T02:18:52.988683Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 10000,
  "summary": "aixbt by Virtuals (AIXBT) is a well-established base token with $27.6M market cap, 1+ years old. The Swarm found deep liquidity ($1.6M).  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: D — high risk — significant concerns identified.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 5.33,
    "name": "aixbt by Virtuals",
    "symbol": "AIXBT",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.02780973,
    "mcap": 27614349,
    "market_cap": 27614349,
    "volume_24h": 8513373,
    "liquidity_usd": 1596392.06,
    "contract_age_days": 542,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 415643,
    "top10_holders_pct": 51.89,
    "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": 97.05,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": null,
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://aixbt.tech",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/aixbt_agent",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/aixbt_tech"
    },
    "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": 6,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The AIXBT token has a moderate security posture with some governance risks due to the potential for ownership transfer and the high concentration of supply among top holders. While the contract is verified and has been operational for over a year, the lack of a formal audit and the unlocked liquidity pool raise concerns about holder safety.; risks: Owner privileges allow for ownership transfer, which could lead to governance risks., High concentration of supply among top holders (51.89% owned by top 10 holders)., Unlocked liquidity pool poses a risk of liquidity drain., No formal audit available, which increases uncertainty about contract security.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The AIXBT token exhibits a solid holder base and significant trading volume, indicating a healthy level of activity. However, the high concentration among top holders and the limited DEX liquidity suggest potential fragility in the market structure.",
        "positives": [
          "Strong holder count of 415,643, indicating broad interest",
          "High 24-hour trading volume of $8,513,373, reflecting active trading",
          "Verified contract with a mature age of 542 days, enhancing trust"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 51.89% of the supply, indicating potential centralization risk",
          "DEX single-pair volume is very low at $10,260.92, suggesting thin liquidity on decentralized platforms",
          "Market cap of $27.6M with liquidity at $1.6M indicates a liquidity ratio that may not support large trades without slippage",
          "confidence 0.75"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.75
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); AIXBT is currently positioned in a mixed macro environment, with its sector showing some resilience due to a recent uptick in AI-related TVL. However, its low liquidity and high holder concentration raise concerns about fragility in a risk-off scenario, limiting its upside potential relative to peers.; drivers: AI sector TVL up 8.6% today, indicating sector strength., Established project with a significant holder base (415,643 holders)., Listed on 65 exchanges, providing broad access.; risks: Very low trading volume relative to market cap (0.0x), indicating illiquidity., High concentration of top 10 holders (51.89%), which may lead to volatility., Current market sentiment is fearful (Fear & Greed Index at 33).; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Despite its age and exchange listings, AIXBT presents an unacceptably high risk profile due to 0% LP lock, unknown mint renouncement, and high top-holder concentration. These fundamental security flaws make the token highly susceptible to rug pulls or centralized manipulation, rendering any bullish investment thesis fundamentally unsound.; risks: 0% LP lock, enabling immediate liquidity withdrawal by the team/deployer., Unknown mint renouncement status, allowing for potential unlimited token minting and supply inflation., High concentration (51.89% in top 10 holders) combined with control over liquidity and supply, creating a high risk of coordinated market manipulation or rug pull., Reliance on 'known established project' status and exchange listings to mask severe on-chain security vulnerabilities., Minimal social data coverage for a mature project, raising questions about transparency and community engagement.; open questions: Whether the mint authority has been renounced or remains active., The true distribution and activity of the 415k holders, beyond raw count., The specific mechanisms or commitments the 'Virtuals Protocol' has in place to mitigate the risks of unlocked LP and potential minting.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "Tokenomics checks; high concentration (top10 51.9%); FDV/MCAP reasonable (1.00x); AI unavailable (AIProviderCallError)",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=8.0, IQ=9.0, CG=8.0, BSD=9.0; Strong official AI agent account with 472k followers actively engaging community on crypto topics. Tied to Virtuals Protocol ecosystem with real utility for token holders (Terminal access). Positive ecosystem mentions, whale buys, no red flags. Sparse direct $AIXBT hype but organic growth and alpha provision drive social health.; narratives: AI agents on Base, Virtuals Protocol ecosystem, On-chain market intelligence; fake/coordination risk: 1/100; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 5.2).\n⚖️ Social vs Safety: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between market perception and underlying risk. While strong social metrics and utility may drive short-term price action and investor interest, unaddressed security and governance vulnerabilities expose investors to significant long-term capital loss, regardless of community sentiment.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot: Split verdict: SocialBot maintains 8.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 3.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.92\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The AIXBT token's security is moderately concerning due to significant governance risks, including owner privileges allowing for ownership transfer an\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because it overlooks critical security vulnerabilities like the lack o\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The AIXBT token demonstrates a robust holder count and substantial trading volume, indicating strong market engagement and interest, which supports a \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 8.0 is too high, as the token's technical fundamentals are undermined by high h\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a resilient AI sector, AIXBT's low liquidity and high holder concentration present significant fragility in a risk-off scenario, limiting its \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because strong social metrics alone cannot compensate for critical und\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: My score of 4.2/10 is prima\nMost optimistic: Technician (6.5/10) — AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The AIXBT token exhibits a solid holder base and significant trading volume, indicating a healthy level of activity.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (3.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Social vs Safety",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence between market perception and underlying risk. While strong social metrics and utility may drive short-term price action and investor interest, unaddressed security and governance vulnerabilities expose investors to significant long-term capital loss, regardless of community sentiment.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Safety scored 6.0/10 while Social scored 8.0/10. This 2.0-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Social may not translate to Safety reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence between market perception and underlying risk. While strong social metrics and utility may drive short-term price action and investor interest, unaddressed security and governance vulnerabilities expose investors to significant long-term capital loss, regardless of community sentiment.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SocialBot maintains 8.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 3.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ SocialBot's optimism is naive; 'sparse direct $AIXBT hype' indicates a disconnect between ecosystem engagement and actual token interest, while 'whale buys' are a red flag given the 51.9% top 10 holder concentration and 0% LP lock. This 'social health' is built on quicksand, ignoring the fundamental security vulnerabilities that make any utility irrelevant if the project is rug-pulled or manipulated.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the 'sparse direct $AIXBT hype' and the valid security concerns regarding holder concentration and LP lock, my 8.0 social score remains justified by the strong, active official AI agent account (472k followers) providing real utility and alpha within the Virtuals Protocol ecosystem, driving organic growth and positive sentiment. The 'whale buys' indicate significant interest, and while they raise security flags, they don't negate the observed community engagement and utility-driven social health, which is distinct from financial security.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ A 472k follower count and 'alpha' from an AI agent offer zero protection against the 51.9% top 10 holder concentration and 0% LP lock; these fundamental security flaws render any perceived utility or organic growth irrelevant, as a rug pull or price manipulation remains an imminent threat regardless of social media engagement. The 'whale buys' you cite are precisely what exacerbate this risk, concentrating more power into hands that can easily exploit the unlocked liquidity and highly central...",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "While acknowledging the 51.9% top 10 holder concentration and 0% LP lock present significant security risks, the 8.0 score reflects strong organic growth indicators like a 472k follower count and an active community, suggesting genuine interest and potential utility that mitigates immediate rug pull impact. The high follower count and engagement, combined with the project's 'alpha' promise, point to a vibrant ecosystem, despite the structural vulnerabilities.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.92",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The AIXBT token's security is moderately concerning due to significant governance risks, including owner privileges allowing for ownership transfer an\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because it overlooks critical security vulnerabilities like the lack o\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The AIXBT token demonstrates a robust holder count and substantial trading volume, indicating strong market engagement and interest, which supports a \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 8.0 is too high, as the token's technical fundamentals are undermined by high h\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Despite a resilient AI sector, AIXBT's low liquidity and high holder concentration present significant fragility in a risk-off scenario, limiting its \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high because strong social metrics alone cannot compensate for critical und\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: My score of 4.2/10 is prima"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "info",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: AIXBT — Score 56/100",
    "description": "6 agents analyzed this token. Devil's Advocate was the lone dissenter (scored 3.0/10 vs swarm average 5.2).\n⚖️ Social vs Safety: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between market perceptio",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x4f9fd6be4a90f2620860d680c0d4d5fb53d1a825"
  }
}