UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x6cca90e732942d73c276f73b805ca2948f6b3018",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 16,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This token is effectively non-existent or completely inactive, with no liquidity, market cap, or holders despite being over two years old.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 705,
      "liquidity_usd": 0,
      "holder_count": 0,
      "has_liquidity_pool": false,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token has $0.00 market cap, $0.00 liquidity, and 0 total holders, indicating no market presence or utility.",
      "Despite being 705 days old, the token shows no financial activity or adoption.",
      "Mutable Metadata status is unknown, which is a potential concern for a token with no other redeeming qualities.",
      "No social presence or links are provided, further suggesting a lack of legitimate project development."
    ],
    "confidence": 1
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": null,
    "is_honeypot": null,
    "holder_count": null,
    "lp_holder_count": null,
    "top_10_holder_rate": null,
    "top10_holders_pct": null,
    "is_open_source": null,
    "is_proxy": null,
    "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": "2026-04-29T02:21:02.958823Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 0,
  "summary": "Unknown Token () is a well-established base token with 1+ years old, verified contract.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": null,
    "name": "",
    "symbol": "",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0,
    "mcap": 0,
    "market_cap": 0,
    "volume_24h": 0,
    "liquidity_usd": 0,
    "contract_age_days": 705,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": null,
    "top10_holders_pct": null,
    "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": null,
    "lp_locked_pct": null,
    "lp_burned_pct": null,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": null,
    "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": null
  },
  "bots": {
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits no on-chain activity, with zero transactions and holders reported over the last 24 hours. Given its 705-day age and verified contract status, the complete lack of market engagement suggests a structurally weak position with high fragility.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified",
          "Token has been deployed for 705 days"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Zero transaction count in the last 24 hours",
          "Zero reported holders",
          "Zero liquidity and market cap",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); This token is currently in a highly fragile position, with no market activity or liquidity, making it extremely vulnerable in the current fear-driven market regime. The lack of identifiable catalysts or sector strength further exacerbates its downside risk.; risks: Zero market activity and liquidity, No identifiable sector or peer strength, Current market sentiment is fearful (Fear & Greed Index at 33); confidence 0.20",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); This token, despite being 705 days old, shows no market activity, liquidity, or holder data. All reported market metrics (price, volume, market cap, FDV, liquidity, holder count, transaction count) are zero, indicating a complete lack of market presence or utility. Without any fundamental data, a tokenomics assessment is impossible, suggesting extreme fragility.; unlock risk: uncertain; + Contract is verified (minimal positive, as it's a basic requirement).; risks: No market activity: All market metrics (price, volume, MCAP, FDV, liquidity) are 0, indicating no trading or utility., No holder data: Holder count is 0, suggesting no active community or distribution., No liquidity: Reported liquidity is $0, making the token untradable., Lack of transparency: Critical data points like top holders, creator share, and exchange listings are unavailable.; confidence 1.00",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 1
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has been deployed for 705 days on the Base chain, but lacks market activity and comprehensive data. While the contract is verified, the absence of key metrics and governance information raises concerns about holder safety and potential risks.; risks: Lack of market activity and holder count raises concerns about liquidity and interest., Missing governance information makes it unclear who controls the contract and its privileges., No audit reports available, which could indicate unassessed vulnerabilities., Potential for undisclosed minting or transfer control mechanisms.; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; This token is fundamentally a non-entity in the market. Its 705-day age combined with zero liquidity, zero transactions, zero reported holders, and no identifiable name or symbol indicates either an abandoned project, a test contract, or a stealth deployment that never launched. There is no basis for a bullish case; the token exhibits all the characteristics of a dead or non-existent asset.; risks: Complete lack of liquidity, making the token untradable., Zero transaction history, indicating no utility or adoption., Absence of token name/symbol, making identification and tracking impossible., No reported holders, suggesting no community or distribution., High probability of being an abandoned or failed project due to its age and inactivity.; open questions: The original purpose or intent behind the contract deployment., Whether the token was ever intended to be publicly traded or used., The identity of the deployer and their current involvement.; confidence 1.00",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 1
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=0.0, IQ=0.0, CG=0.0, BSD=10.0; No evidence of any social activity, discussions, community, or mentions on X/Twitter. Exhaustive searches using contract address, token name 'the token ($)', and variations yielded zero relevant results. Pre-fetched social metrics are entirely absent.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm reached strong consensus: all 6 agents converged on Grade F.\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict signifies that while a token's smart contract might appear 'safe' (verified, no obvious exploits), its complete lack of on-chain activity renders it a dead or abandoned project. Investors face significant risk because a 'safe' but inactive token offers no liquidity, utility, or potential for growth, despite its technical integrity.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot: Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 4.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.37\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The token exhibits a complete absence of market activity, liquidity, and holder data, with all fundamental metrics (price, volume, market cap) reporte\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 4.0 is excessively high given the token's complete lack of market presence, l\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token exhibits no on-chain activity, with zero transactions and holders reported over the last 24 hours. This complete lack of market engagement, \n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high because a token with zero activity and engagement, regardless of its\n  [MacroBot] Defense: From a macro perspective, this token exhibits zero market activity and liquidity, rendering it exceptionally vulnerable to the current fearful market \n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 4.0 is too high because even if the underlying security is flawless, a comple\n  [SocialBot] Defense: My score of 1.0/10 is f\nMost optimistic: Technician (2.0/10) — AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits no on-chain activity, with zero transactions and holders reported over the last 24 hours.\nMost critical: Tokenomics (1.0/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict signifies that while a token's smart contract might appear 'safe' (verified, no obvious exploits), its complete lack of on-chain activity renders it a dead or abandoned project. Investors face significant risk because a 'safe' but inactive token offers no liquidity, utility, or potential for growth, despite its technical integrity.",
      "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 4.0/10. This 3.0-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 signifies that while a token's smart contract might appear 'safe' (verified, no obvious exploits), its complete lack of on-chain activity renders it a dead or abandoned project. Investors face significant risk because a 'safe' but inactive token offers no liquidity, utility, or potential for growth, despite its technical integrity.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 4.0, 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 4.0/10 score is bafflingly optimistic; how can a token with zero market activity, zero holders, no audit, and missing governance information be considered 'neutral' from a security perspective? The mere verification of a contract, a basic requirement, does not offset a complete absence of any other safety or utility indicators, making its assessment dangerously complacent.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "My 4.0/10 score reflects a neutral-to-poor security posture, not optimism. The contract's verification on Base chain allows for code inspection, preventing an immediate critical failure score. However, the acknowledged absence of market activity, holders, audit reports, and governance information are significant detractions, indicating high operational and vulnerability risks, which is why it's far from a passing score. The score is low because of these risks, but not zero, as the contract itself is transparently deployed.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ The contract's mere verification on Base chain is a foundational step, not a security feature offsetting the complete absence of market activity, holders, and audits. These critical omissions inherently create high operational and vulnerability risks, making a 'neutral' security posture an irresponsible assessment given the total lack of real-world validation or independent scrutiny.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical absence of audits and market activity, my 4.0/10 score reflects the baseline security provided by Base chain verification and the inherent immutability of a deployed contract, mitigating some smart contract deployment risks. The 'neutral' aspect accounts for the lack of known vulnerabilities against the lack of proactive security measures like audits.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.37",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The token exhibits a complete absence of market activity, liquidity, and holder data, with all fundamental metrics (price, volume, market cap) reporte\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 4.0 is excessively high given the token's complete lack of market presence, l\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token exhibits no on-chain activity, with zero transactions and holders reported over the last 24 hours. This complete lack of market engagement, \n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high because a token with zero activity and engagement, regardless of its\n  [MacroBot] Defense: From a macro perspective, this token exhibits zero market activity and liquidity, rendering it exceptionally vulnerable to the current fearful market \n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 4.0 is too high because even if the underlying security is flawless, a comple\n  [SocialBot] Defense: My score of 1.0/10 is f"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "info",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm:  — Score 16/100",
    "description": "The swarm reached strong consensus: all 6 agents converged on Grade F.\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict signifies that while a token's smart contract might appear 'safe' (verified, no obvious exp",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x6cca90e732942d73c276f73b805ca2948f6b3018"
  }
}