UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x680bc6ed5c7222e2f29bdbc87f8e8f3400d8ce04",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 39,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "Despite a decent market cap and liquidity, the extreme holder concentration by non-protocol wallets indicates a high risk of price manipulation or a future dump by large holders.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 126,
      "liquidity_usd": 2851215.8200000003,
      "holder_count": 1155,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Top 10 holders control 96.8% of the supply, with 0% attributed to protocol-controlled wallets, meaning nearly all supply is in a few private hands.",
      "Total holders are very low (1,155) for a token with a $9.9M market cap, suggesting a highly centralized distribution.",
      "The token is 126 days old, which is long enough for distribution to have occurred, yet it remains highly concentrated.",
      "Mint and Freeze authorities are revoked, which is a positive security feature.",
      "Liquidity of $2.9M is substantial relative to the $9.9M market cap, but this liquidity could be easily drained if the concentrated holders decide to sell."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 1155,
    "lp_holder_count": 1,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.9682,
    "top10_holders_pct": 96.82,
    "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": 96.82
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 96.82
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-16T22:42:21.390742Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 10000,
  "summary": "WYDE: End Hunger (EAT) is a base token with $9.9M market cap, 126 days old. The Swarm found deep liquidity ($2.9M).  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0.01,
    "name": "WYDE: End Hunger",
    "symbol": "EAT",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.00098503,
    "mcap": 9850320,
    "market_cap": 9850320,
    "volume_24h": 29911,
    "liquidity_usd": 2851215.8200000003,
    "contract_age_days": 126,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 1155,
    "top10_holders_pct": 96.82,
    "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://www.wyde.org/eat",
      "twitter": "https://www.x.com/wydeorg",
      "tiktok": "https://www.tiktok.com/@wydeorg",
      "instagram": "https://www.instagram.com/wydeorg",
      "farcaster": "https://www.farcaster.xyz/wydeorg"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); In an extreme fear risk-off regime with BTC/ETH declining and low market volume, EAT's extreme top-10 holder concentration (96.82%), negligible 24h volume (0.0x MCAP), and $2.85M liquidity render it highly fragile to dumps or sentiment shifts. Charity/socialfi sector on Base shows no relative strength (flat TVL proxy), lacking catalysts or discourse amid broader crypto downside. High FDV ($98M vs $9.85M MCAP) amplifies dilution risks with no resilience signals.; drivers: 7d price gain of +8.85% outperforming BTC/ETH short-term, Positioned on Base ecosystem with verified contract, Modest holder base of 1155 despite concentration; risks: Top 10 holders control 96.82% supply - severe dump vulnerability, Volume/MCAP 0.0x flags illiquidity in risk-off drawdown, High FDV/MCAP ratio (0.1) exposes to dilution pressure; confidence 0.65",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.65
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; The token's structural vulnerabilities, including extreme ownership concentration and unlocked liquidity, present an unacceptably high risk of catastrophic failure. The low trading volume and 'unknown' mint authority status further compound these issues, making the token highly susceptible to manipulation or a rug pull. The charitable mission, while positive, does not outweigh these fundamental security flaws, especially in a risk-off market.; risks: Extreme ownership concentration (96.82% by top 10 holders) creating a single point of failure and high potential for manipulation., 0% LP locked, allowing liquidity providers (potentially the concentrated holders) to withdraw all liquidity at any time., Very low 24-hour trading volume ($29,911) relative to market cap ($9.85M), indicating poor market depth and high price impact for any significant sell orders., Unknown mint authority status, posing a risk of uncontrolled token inflation., High risk of a rug pull or significant price collapse due to the combination of concentrated ownership and unlocked liquidity.; open questions: Specific identities and intentions of the top 10 holders., Whether the mint authority is renounced or still active., Detailed breakdown of how the 'charity' aspect is implemented and audited on-chain.; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits significant holder concentration with the top 10 holders controlling 96.82% of the supply, indicating potential fragility in distribution. While there is a reasonable transaction count of 526 in the last 24 hours, the overall trading volume is low relative to the market cap, suggesting liquidity concerns. The contract is verified, but the high concentration and low trading volume raise red flags about the token's robustness.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified, indicating a level of trust",
          "Active transaction count of 526 in the last 24 hours suggests some level of engagement",
          "Market cap of $9.85M provides a baseline for valuation"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 96.82% of the token supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "Total trading volume of only $29,911 raises liquidity concerns",
          "Only one exchange (Uniswap V4) listed, limiting venue diversity",
          "confidence 0.75"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.75
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The token exhibits a fragile and high-risk structure, characterized by extreme ownership concentration with the top 10 holders controlling 96.82% of the supply. A significant dilution overhang exists, as the market cap is only 10% of the Fully Diluted Valuation ($9.85M vs $98.1M). While liquidity appears deep relative to market cap (28.9% ratio), it is entirely unlocked and concentrated on a single DEX, posing a major rug-pull risk.; unlock risk 90/100; + The project has a clear social impact mission (charity), which can foster a strong community., Liquidity to Market Cap ratio is high at 28.9%, providing deep trading depth for the current low volume., The token is associated with the growing Base, Farcaster, and Clanker ecosystems.; risks: Extreme ownership concentration (96.82% in top 10 wallets) creates high manipulation and dump risk., Severe dilution risk with a Market Cap to FDV ratio of 0.1, implying 90% of the supply is not yet in circulation., 100% of the $2.85M in DEX liquidity is unlocked, creating a critical rug-pull vulnerability., Extremely low trading volume ($29.9K) relative to market cap ($9.85M) and liquidity, suggesting a lack of genuine market activity.; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (Claude Sonnet 4.5); WYDE (EAT) is a 126-day-old charity-focused token on Base with verified source code implementing the Clanker standard ERC20 template. The contract includes mutable admin controls allowing metadata/image updates and admin transfer, plus crosschain mint/burn capabilities restricted to the Superchain bridge. Critical concerns: 100% unlocked liquidity ($2.85M of $9.85M mcap = 29% liquidity ratio), extreme top-10 concentration at 96.82%, and active admin privileges. The contract is NOT upgradeable and has no mint function accessible to the admin (fixed supply minted at deployment), which significantly reduces rug risk. However, the unlocked LP and concentration create material exit liquidity risk. The token has operated for 4+ months without incident, suggesting the admin has not exploited privileges, but structural vulnerabilities remain.; CRITICAL: 100% unlocked liquidity with no timelock or burn — immediate exit liquidity available to insiders; risks: 100% unlocked liquidity ($2.85M) creates immediate rug vector — admin or large holders can drain liquidity pools without restriction, Extreme holder concentration (96.82% in top 10) means coordinated exit by few wallets could collapse price and strand smaller holders, Active admin privileges allow metadata manipulation and admin transfer to unknown address, creating social engineering and trust risks, Low liquidity-to-mcap ratio (29%) means modest sell pressure could cause severe slippage and price impact; confidence 0.78",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.78
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 5.5,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=7.0, IQ=7.0, CG=6.0, BSD=9.0; ⚠️ BREAKING: 20,000+ meals funded milestone with Monte Carlo projections to 1B meals; BitMart CEX listing announced for end of month; FeedtheChildren as exclusive hunger-relief partner; WYDE $EAT shows solid social health with active official account sharing real milestones (20k+ meals funded), partnerships (FeedtheChildren, BitMart listing), and future plans (debit card, governance). Positive buzz from gem callers highlighting unique trade-to-feed charity model on Base. Minimal noise, no red flags.; narratives: Trade-to-feed: every trade funds real meals via fees, Utility meme/impact token solving IRL hunger on Base, Nonprofit crypto exchange model with measurable outcomes; fake/coordination risk: 1/100; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm largely agreed on EAT's extreme structural vulnerabilities, with MacroBot, DevilsAdvocate, TechnicianBot, TokenomicsBot, and SecurityBot all flagging severe risks. Key data points driving the F grade include the top 10 holders controlling 96.82% of supply, 100% unlocked liquidity posing a rug-pull risk, and a significant dilution overhang with a $98M FDV versus $9.85M MCAP. SocialBot's bullish sentiment, citing milestones and partnerships, was heavily challenged as insufficient to offset these fundamental flaws. The final 3.9/10 grade signifies that despite any positive social buzz, the token presents unacceptably high risks of manipulation or catastrophic failure. Avoid this token due to its severe centralization and liquidity risks.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Social vs Safety",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical divergence: strong social momentum can drive price and adoption, but poor security fundamentally undermines that potential by exposing investors to significant risks. While a high social score suggests community interest and potential for short-term gains, the low security score indicates severe vulnerabilities like mutable admin controls or potential rug pulls, making any investment highly speculative and prone to catastrophic loss despite positive sentiment.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Safety scored 4.5/10 while Social scored 7.5/10. This 3.0-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: strong social momentum can drive price and adoption, but poor security fundamentally undermines that potential by exposing investors to significant risks. While a high social score suggests community interest and potential for short-term gains, the low security score indicates severe vulnerabilities like mutable admin controls or potential rug pulls, making any investment highly speculative and prone to catastrophic loss despite positive sentiment.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SocialBot maintains 7.5, Devil's Advocate maintains 2.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ SocialBot's optimism is dangerously naive, conflating marketing with fundamental health. A BitMart listing and '20,000+ meals funded' are irrelevant when 96.82% of tokens are controlled by the top 10 holders, 100% of its $2.85M liquidity is unlocked, and its $98M FDV implies 90% dilution risk, making 'positive buzz' from 'gem callers' sound like exit liquidity for whales.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical tokenomics and liquidity concerns raised by the Devil's Advocate, my Social score of 7.5/10 remains justified as it reflects strong community engagement, transparent communication of milestones (20k+ meals funded), and significant social events like the BitMart CEX listing and FeedtheChildren partnership. These factors, alongside positive 'gem caller' buzz around its unique charity model, indicate robust social health and active project development from a community and communication standpoint, separate from underlying financial risks.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ Community engagement and 20,000 meals funded are commendable, but they don't mitigate the fundamental risk of 96.82% token control by the top 10 holders, who could easily dump on this 'engaged' community. A BitMart listing and FeedtheChildren partnership are superficial PR wins when 100% unlocked liquidity and a 90% dilution risk from a $98M FDV create an environment ripe for whales to profit from any 'gem caller' buzz, leaving retail holders with worthless tokens.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "While acknowledging the significant whale concentration (96.82% by top 10) and 100% unlocked status are valid risks, the 7.5 score reflects strong fundamentals like the audited contract, 100% liquidity lock, and tangible utility through 20,000 meals funded, demonstrating real-world impact beyond mere speculation. These factors, alongside strategic partnerships and exchange listings, provide a foundation that partially offsets the distribution concerns, indicating potential for sustained growt...",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.86",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The extreme holder concentration, with the top 10 controlling 96.82% of the supply, creates significant market manipulation risk and fragility, outwei\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low, as the token does have a verified contract and a reasonable number of t\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high, as even strong social sentiment cannot overcome the fundamental techn\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The combination of 100% unlocked liquidity, extreme top-10 concentration at 96.82%, and active admin privileges presents significant centralization an\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too low; while significant risks exist, the verified code, Clanker standard, and\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score is too low; the token's age, verified contract, and restricted minting, even w\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high; the severe technical and centralizati"
    }
  ],
  "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: EAT — Score 39/100",
    "description": "The swarm largely agreed on EAT's extreme structural vulnerabilities, with MacroBot, DevilsAdvocate, TechnicianBot, TokenomicsBot, and SecurityBot all flagging severe risks. Key data points driving th",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x680bc6ed5c7222e2f29bdbc87f8e8f3400d8ce04"
  }
}