UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x6199fe2f43c826e044a70075dd56fba05baadb07",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 11.2,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This token exhibits severe red flags typical of a potential rug pull or abandoned project, with extremely low liquidity, zero trading volume, and 100% concentration among a handful of wallets.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 79,
      "liquidity_usd": 24076.04,
      "holder_count": 6,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Extremely low market cap ($24K) and zero 24h trading volume ($5.22), indicating no market interest or activity.",
      "Total liquidity ($24K) is equal to the market cap, which is highly unusual and suggests a very shallow and illiquid market.",
      "Only 6 total holders, with the top 10 wallets (which is all of them) holding 100% of the supply, indicating extreme centralization and high risk of manipulation or dump.",
      "No social presence (links: None) for a 79-day-old token, which is a major red flag for legitimacy and community support.",
      "While Mint and Freeze authorities are revoked, the overall structure points to an abandoned or scam project."
    ],
    "confidence": 1
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 6,
    "lp_holder_count": 1,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 1,
    "top10_holders_pct": 100,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
        "value": 100
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 100
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-23T00:43:31.273787Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 180.57,
  "summary": "PokerClaw (PCLAW) is a base token with $24K market cap, 79 days old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, weak technical fundamentals. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0,
    "name": "PokerClaw",
    "symbol": "PCLAW",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 2.362e-7,
    "mcap": 23626,
    "market_cap": 23626,
    "volume_24h": 5.22,
    "liquidity_usd": 24076.04,
    "contract_age_days": 79,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 6,
    "top10_holders_pct": 100,
    "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": null,
    "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": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); PokerClaw (PCLAW) exhibits extremely poor on-chain health characterized by negligible activity and extreme holder concentration. With only 6 holders and 100% of the supply controlled by the top 10 holders, the token shows signs of structural fragility and a lack of organic trading activity.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified",
          "Token has been deployed for 79 days, indicating some level of maturity",
          "Current price is stable with minimal volatility (-0.04% change)"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Only 2 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate very low activity",
          "Total holder count is only 6, suggesting a lack of community engagement",
          "Top 10 holders control 100% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "PokerClaw (PCLAW) exhibits extremely poor on-chain health characterized by negligible activity and extreme holder concentration. With only 6 holders and 100% of the supply controlled by the top 10 holders, the token shows signs of structural fragility and a lack of organic trading activity.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified.",
          "Token has been deployed for 79 days, indicating some level of maturity.",
          "Current price is stable with minimal volatility (-0.04% change).",
          "Liquidity is present at $24,076.04."
        ],
        "negatives": [
          "Only 2 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate very low activity.",
          "Total holder count is only 6, suggesting a lack of community engagement.",
          "Top 10 holders control 100% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration.",
          "24-hour trading volume is only $5.22, reflecting fragile liquidity."
        ],
        "anomaly_flags": [],
        "confidence": 0.25,
        "contract_age_days": 79,
        "tx_count_24h": 2,
        "volume_24h": 5.22,
        "price_usd": 2.362e-7
      }
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The tokenomics are extremely fragile and indicative of a non-viable or abandoned project. With only 6 holders controlling 100% of the supply, a market cap of just $23,626, and a negligible 24-hour volume of $5, this token exhibits extreme centralization and a complete lack of market activity. The fact that 100% of the liquidity pool is unlocked presents a critical and immediate risk of a rug pull.; unlock risk 100/100; + The MCap/FDV ratio is 1.0, indicating no immediate inflationary pressure from uncirculated supply., The contract is verified on-chain., The reported liquidity-to-market cap ratio is high (1.019), though the absolute value is tiny.; risks: Extreme centralization with only 6 holders controlling 100% of the supply., 100% of liquidity is unlocked, posing a maximum rug pull risk., Effectively zero trading volume ($5 in 24 hours), indicating a dead market., The holder count is critically low, showing no community or investor interest.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "The tokenomics are extremely fragile and indicative of a non-viable or abandoned project. With only 6 holders controlling 100% of the supply, a market cap of just $23,626, and a negligible 24-hour volume of $5, this token exhibits extreme centralization and a complete lack of market activity. The fact that 100% of the liquidity pool is unlocked presents a critical and immediate risk of a rug pull.",
        "key_risks": [
          "Extreme centralization with only 6 holders controlling 100% of the supply.",
          "100% of liquidity is unlocked, posing a maximum rug pull risk.",
          "Effectively zero trading volume ($5 in 24 hours), indicating a dead market.",
          "The holder count is critically low, showing no community or investor interest.",
          "The project appears abandoned or was never seriously launched, given the lack of activity and distribution after 79 days."
        ],
        "positives": [
          "The MCap/FDV ratio is 1.0, indicating no immediate inflationary pressure from uncirculated supply.",
          "The contract is verified on-chain.",
          "The reported liquidity-to-market cap ratio is high (1.019), though the absolute value is tiny."
        ],
        "unlock_risk": 100,
        "distribution_assessment": "Distribution is effectively non-existent. The entire supply is controlled by a tiny group of 6 wallets, representing a Gini coefficient of nearly 1. This level of concentration is absolute and indicates the token has failed to achieve any meaningful distribution to a wider community. It is a closed system with no external participation.",
        "comparable_models": {
          "successful": [],
          "failed": [
            "abandoned micro-cap tokens",
            "hobby projects with no traction",
            "rug-pulled tokens"
          ]
        },
        "confidence": 0.9,
        "mcap": 23626,
        "fdv": 23626,
        "mcap_fdv_ratio": 1,
        "top10_holders_pct": 100,
        "holder_count": 6,
        "liquidity_usd": 24076.04,
        "liquidity_mcap_ratio": 1.019
      }
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; PokerClaw presents an extremely high-risk profile, bordering on a guaranteed loss scenario. The combination of 0% LP lock, 100% top-holder concentration, non-existent trading volume, and complete lack of project information for an established token points to an abandoned project or an imminent rug pull. The neutral consensus is dangerously miscalibrated.; risks: Complete rug pull risk due to 0% LP lock and unknown mint authority., Extreme centralization (100% held by top 10 addresses) enables price manipulation and arbitrary liquidity removal., Non-existent trading volume ($5.22/24h) and activity (2 tx/24h) indicate a dead or abandoned project., Lack of project description, social presence, and utility suggests no fundamental value or community., Potential for a 'honeypot' or other exploit given the lack of transparency and security features.; open questions: Status of mint authority (renounced or not)., Identity and intent of the top 10 holders., Original purpose or vision of the 'PokerClaw' project.; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); PokerClaw is extremely fragile in the neutral market regime due to microscopic liquidity (0.0x volume-to-MCAP), only 6 holders with 100% supply concentration, and zero social or trader discourse. No identifiable sector strength, catalysts, or relative outperformance potential versus Base chain peers or broader crypto. High vulnerability to any risk-off shift, likely to gap down sharply or evaporate in a drawdown.; drivers: Deployed on Base (L2 with some ecosystem resilience), Verified contract reduces some rug risk, Neutral Fear & Greed (46) avoids immediate panic selling; risks: Extreme illiquidity (24h vol $5 vs $23k MCAP; <0.05x ratio flags fragility), Total holder concentration (100% in top 10; only 6 holders total), No volume/activity/social presence for established token (79 days); confidence 0.45",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.45,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "PokerClaw is extremely fragile in the neutral market regime due to microscopic liquidity (0.0x volume-to-MCAP), only 6 holders with 100% supply concentration, and zero social or trader discourse. No identifiable sector strength, catalysts, or relative outperformance potential versus Base chain peers or broader crypto. High vulnerability to any risk-off shift, likely to gap down sharply or evaporate in a drawdown.",
        "key_drivers": [
          "Deployed on Base (L2 with some ecosystem resilience)",
          "Verified contract reduces some rug risk",
          "Neutral Fear & Greed (46) avoids immediate panic selling"
        ],
        "key_risks": [
          "Extreme illiquidity (24h vol $5 vs $23k MCAP; <0.05x ratio flags fragility)",
          "Total holder concentration (100% in top 10; only 6 holders total)",
          "No volume/activity/social presence for established token (79 days)",
          "Missing catalysts, sector data, and macro benchmarks amplify uncertainty"
        ],
        "correlations": {
          "btc": "high beta expected (small illiquid token amplifies BTC moves)",
          "eth": "high beta via Base (ETH L2 linkage)",
          "rates": "unknown (no data; small caps sensitive to risk-off)",
          "dxy": "unknown (no data; USD strength could pressure alts)"
        },
        "sector_outlook": "Unknown/inferred 'other' (possibly gaming/meme on Base); no DefiLlama TVL, no peers for comparison, but token lags any Base momentum due to dormancy.",
        "confidence": 0.45,
        "volume_24h": 5.22,
        "mcap": 23626
      }
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=0.0, IQ=0.0, CG=0.0, BSD=10.0; Zero detectable social activity or mentions on X/Twitter for the specific PokerClaw $PCLAW token on Base (contract: 0x6199fe2f43C826E044A70075Dd56Fba05BAaDb07). Searches returned unrelated projects using similar ticker $PCLAW (e.g., PredictClaw AI agents launching on Solana, PokeBOOK AI pCLAW), confirming this token has no social footprint.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "Zero detectable social activity or mentions on X/Twitter for the specific PokerClaw $PCLAW token on Base (contract: 0x6199fe2f43C826E044A70075Dd56Fba05BAaDb07). Searches returned unrelated projects using similar ticker $PCLAW (e.g., PredictClaw AI agents launching on Solana, PokeBOOK AI pCLAW), confirming this token has no social footprint.",
        "fake_engagement_risk": 0,
        "confidence": 0.9,
        "sub_dimensions": {
          "organic_engagement": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "No posts or engagement found for this token.",
            "weight": 0.4
          },
          "influencer_quality": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "No influencer mentions.",
            "weight": 0.25
          },
          "community_growth": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "No growth signals; static low holder count.",
            "weight": 0.2
          },
          "bot_spam_detection": {
            "score": 10,
            "rationale": "No activity to detect bots; absence is genuine.",
            "weight": 0.15
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "6 agents analyzed this token. Security was the lone dissenter (scored 5.8/10 vs swarm average 1.9).\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict is critical because SafetyBot's 'good' score focuses on foundational security and transparency (verified source, available code), while TechnicianBot's 'bad' score highlights severe on-chain structural risks (extreme holder concentration, negligible activity). It means that while the token's *code and origin* might appear legitimate, its *market dynamics and distribution* are highly centralized and illiquid, posing significant investment risk despite superficial safety checks.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot: Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.\nMost optimistic: Security (5.8/10) — Safety checks; verified source; source available; AI unavailable (AIProviderCallError).\nMost critical: Technician (1.0/10) — AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); PokerClaw (PCLAW) exhibits extremely poor on-chain health characterized by negligible activity and extreme holder concentration.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict is critical because SafetyBot's 'good' score focuses on foundational security and transparency (verified source, available code), while TechnicianBot's 'bad' score highlights severe on-chain structural risks (extreme holder concentration, negligible activity). It means that while the token's *code and origin* might appear legitimate, its *market dynamics and distribution* are highly centralized and illiquid, posing significant investment risk despite superficial safety checks.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 1.0/10 while Safety scored 5.8/10. This 4.8-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 is critical because SafetyBot's 'good' score focuses on foundational security and transparency (verified source, available code), while TechnicianBot's 'bad' score highlights severe on-chain structural risks (extreme holder concentration, negligible activity). It means that while the token's *code and origin* might appear legitimate, its *market dynamics and distribution* are highly centralized and illiquid, posing significant investment risk despite superficial safety checks.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 'safety' assessment is dangerously superficial, completely ignoring the 100% unlocked liquidity pool and extreme 6-holder concentration, which scream 'imminent rug pull' or 'abandoned project' despite a verified source. Basic contract verification offers zero protection against the tokenomics-driven, guaranteed loss scenario identified by every other bot.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical risk of 100% unlocked liquidity and high holder concentration, my 5.8/10 Safety score reflects the *contract's* verifiable integrity and absence of direct malicious functions (e.g., minting, blacklist, modifiable fees) found during basic safety checks. These tokenomics concerns, though severe, fall outside the scope of *contract-level* safety analysis, which focuses on code vulnerabilities and direct backdoor risks, not market manipulation or liquidity provision.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Your focus on 'contract-level' integrity and absence of malicious functions utterly fails to address the immediate, quantifiable threat posed by 100% unlocked liquidity and 6-holder concentration. These tokenomics directly enable an instant, irreversible rug pull or abandonment, rendering contract 'integrity' irrelevant when the project's financial foundation is built on quicksand.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "While the immediate risks of unlocked liquidity and holder concentration are undeniable and severely impact investment viability, my 5.8/10 score specifically reflects the *technical contract security* – its immutability and absence of malicious functions – which is robust. These tokenomic weaknesses, while critical, do not originate from the contract's code itself but from its deployment and distribution choices, warranting a distinct risk assessment.",
          "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: PCLAW — Score 11/100",
    "description": "6 agents analyzed this token. Security was the lone dissenter (scored 5.8/10 vs swarm average 1.9).\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict is critical because SafetyBot's 'good' score focuses on founda",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x6199fe2f43c826e044a70075dd56fba05baadb07"
  }
}