UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x858c50c3af1913b0e849afdb74617388a1a5340d",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 36,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNKNOWN",
    "reason": "AI analysis unavailable - insufficient data",
    "label": "",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 802,
      "liquidity_usd": 34205.24,
      "holder_count": 27225,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "medium",
    "key_findings": [],
    "confidence": 0
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": true,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 27225,
    "lp_holder_count": 2,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.8908,
    "top10_holders_pct": 89.08,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "MINTABLE",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Token supply can be minted",
        "value": true
      },
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
        "value": 89.08
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "MINTABLE",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Token supply can be minted",
      "value": true
    },
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 89.08
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-26T02:53:57.187038Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 256.54,
  "summary": "SubQueryToken (SQT) is a well-established base token with $1.1M market cap, 2+ years old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, weak technical fundamentals. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 2.23,
    "name": "SubQueryToken",
    "symbol": "SQT",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.00029667,
    "mcap": 1123032,
    "market_cap": 1123032,
    "volume_24h": 76237,
    "liquidity_usd": 34205.24,
    "contract_age_days": 802,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 27225,
    "top10_holders_pct": 89.08,
    "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": "ACTIVE_PER_GOPLUS",
    "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://subquery.network/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/subquerynetwork",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/subquerynetworkcommunity"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The on-chain activity for SubQueryToken (SQT) shows low transaction volume and high holder concentration, indicating potential fragility in liquidity and trading health. While the token has a significant holder count, the overwhelming control by the top holders raises concerns about distribution quality and market stability.",
        "positives": [
          "Established project with a verified contract and 802 days of age",
          "A large holder count of 27,225 suggests some level of interest",
          "Listed on 6 exchanges, providing a broader venue mix"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Only 7 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate weak activity",
          "Top 10 holders control 89.1% of the supply, suggesting extreme concentration",
          "Liquidity is thin at $34,205.24, which may hinder trading execution",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "The on-chain activity for SubQueryToken (SQT) shows low transaction volume and high holder concentration, indicating potential fragility in liquidity and trading health. While the token has a significant holder count, the overwhelming control by the top holders raises concerns about distribution quality and market stability.",
        "positives": [
          "Established project with a verified contract and 802 days of age.",
          "A large holder count of 27,225 suggests some level of interest.",
          "Listed on 6 exchanges, providing a broader venue mix.",
          "Market cap of $1.1M indicates a reasonable size for a utility token."
        ],
        "negatives": [
          "Only 7 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate weak activity.",
          "Top 10 holders control 89.1% of the supply, suggesting extreme concentration.",
          "Liquidity is thin at $34,205.24, which may hinder trading execution.",
          "Total volume of $76,237.00 is low relative to the market cap, indicating potential trading issues."
        ],
        "anomaly_flags": [],
        "confidence": 0.25,
        "contract_age_days": 802,
        "tx_count_24h": 7,
        "volume_24h": 76237,
        "price_usd": 0.00029667
      }
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); SubQueryToken (SQT) has a mixed security posture. While it has been operational for over 800 days and is part of an established project, there are significant risks associated with holder concentration and liquidity control. The absence of a formal audit and the unlocked liquidity pool further contribute to the uncertainty surrounding its security.; CRITICAL: Unlocked liquidity pool poses a risk of sudden liquidity drain, High holder concentration increases vulnerability to coordinated sell-offs; risks: High concentration of top holders (89.08% controlled by top 10 holders), Unlocked liquidity pool (100% unlocked), No formal audit available, Minting and burning privileges controlled by the L2 bridge, which could be a single point of failure; confidence 0.60",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "SubQueryToken (SQT) has a mixed security posture. While it has been operational for over 800 days and is part of an established project, there are significant risks associated with holder concentration and liquidity control. The absence of a formal audit and the unlocked liquidity pool further contribute to the uncertainty surrounding its security.",
        "key_risks": [
          "High concentration of top holders (89.08% controlled by top 10 holders)",
          "Unlocked liquidity pool (100% unlocked)",
          "No formal audit available",
          "Minting and burning privileges controlled by the L2 bridge, which could be a single point of failure",
          "Lack of transparency regarding liquidity provider custody and unlock timelines"
        ],
        "critical_flags": [
          "Unlocked liquidity pool poses a risk of sudden liquidity drain",
          "High holder concentration increases vulnerability to coordinated sell-offs"
        ],
        "confidence": 0.6,
        "mint_authority": "ACTIVE_PER_GOPLUS",
        "freeze_authority": null,
        "lp_status": "unlocked",
        "contract_verified": true
      }
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 2.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); SubQueryToken (SQT) exhibits extremely high concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 89.08% of the supply, indicating significant centralization risk. Despite a mature project age and 27,225 reported holders, this concentration is alarming. The FDV of $490,872 being lower than the market cap of $1,123,032 suggests a significant portion of the supply is already circulating, but this is contradicted by the high concentration. Liquidity is very thin, with a Liquidity/MCap ratio of 0.03 and negligible DEX single-pair volume, despite decent exchange breadth.; unlock risk 100/100; + Established project: SubQuery is a known infrastructure project., Good exchange breadth: Listed on 6 exchanges, including major CEXs and DEXs., Reported holder count: A high number of holders (27,225) suggests some level of public interest, though concentration is an issue.; risks: Extreme centralization: Top 10 holders control 89.08% of the supply, posing severe manipulation and dump risk., Liquidity fragility: Very low liquidity ($34,205) relative to market cap (0.03 ratio) and negligible DEX volume, making large trades difficult and price highly susceptible to movement., Misleading MCap/FDV: While MCap > FDV suggests high circulation, the extreme concentration implies this 'circulating' supply is largely in the hands of a few, not broadly distributed., Lack of transparency on vesting/emissions: Absence of this data, combined with high concentration, raises concerns about future supply shocks.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "SubQueryToken (SQT) exhibits extremely high concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 89.08% of the supply, indicating significant centralization risk. Despite a mature project age and 27,225 reported holders, this concentration is alarming. The FDV of $490,872 being lower than the market cap of $1,123,032 suggests a significant portion of the supply is already circulating, but this is contradicted by the high concentration. Liquidity is very thin, with a Liquidity/MCap ratio of 0.03 and negligible DEX single-pair volume, despite decent exchange breadth.",
        "key_risks": [
          "Extreme centralization: Top 10 holders control 89.08% of the supply, posing severe manipulation and dump risk.",
          "Liquidity fragility: Very low liquidity ($34,205) relative to market cap (0.03 ratio) and negligible DEX volume, making large trades difficult and price highly susceptible to movement.",
          "Misleading MCap/FDV: While MCap > FDV suggests high circulation, the extreme concentration implies this 'circulating' supply is largely in the hands of a few, not broadly distributed.",
          "Lack of transparency on vesting/emissions: Absence of this data, combined with high concentration, raises concerns about future supply shocks.",
          "Potential for 'rug pull' or significant price suppression by large holders due to high control."
        ],
        "positives": [
          "Established project: SubQuery is a known infrastructure project.",
          "Good exchange breadth: Listed on 6 exchanges, including major CEXs and DEXs.",
          "Reported holder count: A high number of holders (27,225) suggests some level of public interest, though concentration is an issue.",
          "Token type: Utility token, implying a functional purpose within the ecosystem."
        ],
        "unlock_risk": 100,
        "distribution_assessment": "The distribution is highly centralized, with the top 10 holders controlling nearly 90% of the supply. While the reported holder count of 27,225 is substantial, the extreme concentration suggests that a large number of these holders possess very small amounts, or the top holders are very few entities controlling large portions. This structure poses a significant risk of price manipulation and large sell-offs by a few entities. The 'most supply circulating' interpretation from the MCap/FDV ratio is undermined by this extreme concentration.",
        "comparable_models": {
          "successful": [],
          "failed": [
            "Many early-stage projects with high insider control that failed to decentralize",
            "Tokens with low liquidity and high concentration leading to price volatility and collapse"
          ]
        },
        "confidence": 0.8,
        "mcap": 1123032,
        "fdv": 490872,
        "mcap_fdv_ratio": 2.288,
        "top10_holders_pct": 89.08,
        "holder_count": 27225,
        "liquidity_usd": 34205.24,
        "liquidity_mcap_ratio": 0.0305
      }
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); SubQueryToken (SQT) is currently positioned in a weak sector relative to its peers, with low trading volume indicating liquidity vulnerability. The token's high holder concentration and negative price movement amid a neutral market regime suggest fragility, especially as market sentiment remains fearful.; drivers: SubQuery's utility in decentralized data indexing may attract developers in the long term., Base ecosystem TVL is slightly up, indicating some sector resilience., Established project with a mature age of 802 days.; risks: Very low trading volume (0.0x market cap) indicates illiquidity., High concentration of top holders (89.08%) raises concerns about price manipulation., Current market sentiment is fearful (Fear & Greed Index at 31), which could lead to further drawdowns.; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "SubQueryToken (SQT) is currently positioned in a weak sector relative to its peers, with low trading volume indicating liquidity vulnerability. The token's high holder concentration and negative price movement amid a neutral market regime suggest fragility, especially as market sentiment remains fearful.",
        "key_drivers": [
          "SubQuery's utility in decentralized data indexing may attract developers in the long term.",
          "Base ecosystem TVL is slightly up, indicating some sector resilience.",
          "Established project with a mature age of 802 days.",
          "Potential for future partnerships or integrations within the DeFi space."
        ],
        "key_risks": [
          "Very low trading volume (0.0x market cap) indicates illiquidity.",
          "High concentration of top holders (89.08%) raises concerns about price manipulation.",
          "Current market sentiment is fearful (Fear & Greed Index at 31), which could lead to further drawdowns.",
          "Lack of strong catalysts or news flow to drive interest in the token."
        ],
        "correlations": {
          "btc": "likely underperform due to low beta and liquidity issues",
          "eth": "similar underperformance expected",
          "rates": "sensitive to macroeconomic conditions, but no direct correlation evident",
          "dxy": "potentially negative correlation if dollar strength continues"
        },
        "sector_outlook": "The infrastructure and DeFi sectors are currently under pressure, with SQT showing divergence from the slight uptick in Base ecosystem TVL, indicating potential weakness relative to peers.",
        "confidence": 0.4,
        "volume_24h": 76237,
        "mcap": 1123032
      }
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; The SubQueryToken on Base is fundamentally compromised by a combination of 0% LP lock, unrenounced mint authority, and extreme token concentration. These factors present an immediate and unmitigated rug-pull risk, making the token's on-chain security profile catastrophically weak, regardless of the project's broader reputation.; risks: Rug pull via liquidity removal (0% LP lock), Inflationary attack via unlimited minting (unrenounced mint authority), Market manipulation/dump by concentrated holders (89.08% in top 10), Insufficient liquidity to absorb selling pressure from large holders, Lack of basic on-chain security for an 'established project'; open questions: The identity and intentions of the top 10 holders., The specific purpose of this Base deployment given the project's multi-chain nature and the glaring security flaws., Why an 'established project' would deploy with such critical vulnerabilities.; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=3.0, IQ=0.0, CG=2.0, BSD=8.0; Established infrastructure project with an active official X account posting quality content on AI-blockchain integration, but extremely low community engagement, mentions, or external discussion on X. Searches returned almost no recent non-official activity.; narratives: AI agents accessing real-time on-chain data via GraphQL (AskSubQuery), Multi-chain indexing infrastructure powering 300+ networks, Positioned as GRT alternative by some minor mentions; fake/coordination risk: 1/100; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4,
      "structured_findings": {
        "summary": "Established infrastructure project with an active official X account posting quality content on AI-blockchain integration, but extremely low community engagement, mentions, or external discussion on X. Searches returned almost no recent non-official activity.",
        "fake_engagement_risk": 1,
        "narratives": [
          "AI agents accessing real-time on-chain data via GraphQL (AskSubQuery)",
          "Multi-chain indexing infrastructure powering 300+ networks",
          "Positioned as GRT alternative by some minor mentions"
        ],
        "confidence": 0.4,
        "sub_dimensions": {
          "organic_engagement": {
            "score": 3,
            "rationale": "Official recent post (Apr 23, 2026) garnered 98 likes, 28 reposts, 16k views on AI product; zero community replies or shares beyond that.",
            "weight": 0.4
          },
          "influencer_quality": {
            "score": 0,
            "rationale": "No high-engagement ($SQT min_faves:100 or @subquery min_faves:50) mentions found; only low-engagement Turkish shills in polls.",
            "weight": 0.25
          },
          "community_growth": {
            "score": 2,
            "rationale": "Negligible recent mentions (2 low-engagement posts); no evidence of growth or buzz.",
            "weight": 0.2
          },
          "bot_spam_detection": {
            "score": 8,
            "rationale": "No repetitive spam, bot clusters, or coordination signals observed; activity too sparse for bot risk.",
            "weight": 0.15
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Safety vs Social: This conflict highlights a critical dichotomy: strong underlying technical potential or operational stability (implied by SafetyBot's score despite risks) versus very weak market interest and adoption (SocialBot's score). For investors, it means the project might be technically sound but lacks the community, buzz, and potentially the network effect crucial for long-term value appreciation and liquidity. A good safety score with poor social engagement suggests a project that, while potentially...\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot: Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.\nMost optimistic: Security (5.0/10) — AI security (gpt-4o-mini); SubQueryToken (SQT) has a mixed security posture.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (1.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Social",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights a critical dichotomy: strong underlying technical potential or operational stability (implied by SafetyBot's score despite risks) versus very weak market interest and adoption (SocialBot's score). For investors, it means the project might be technically sound but lacks the community, buzz, and potentially the network effect crucial for long-term value appreciation and liquidity. A good safety score with poor social engagement suggests a project that, while potentially...",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Social scored 3.0/10 while Safety scored 5.0/10. This 2.0-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Safety may not translate to Social reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "This conflict highlights a critical dichotomy: strong underlying technical potential or operational stability (implied by SafetyBot's score despite risks) versus very weak market interest and adoption (SocialBot's score). For investors, it means the project might be technically sound but lacks the community, buzz, and potentially the network effect crucial for long-term value appreciation and liquidity. A good safety score with poor social engagement suggests a project that, while potentially...",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.0, 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 5.0/10 score is dangerously naive; it acknowledges an 'unlocked liquidity pool' but fails to highlight the '0% LP lock' and 'unrenounced mint authority' explicitly, which, combined with the 'top 10 holders controlling 89.08% of the supply,' creates an unmitigated rug-pull risk, not a 'mixed' posture. The project's age is irrelevant when fundamental security mechanisms are catastrophically absent.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical concern of unrenounced mint authority, which compounds the risk of the 0% LP lock and 89.08% top-holder concentration, our 5.0/10 score reflects a 'mixed' posture due to the project's established 800+ day operational history. This history, while not negating fundamental security flaws, suggests a degree of project commitment that slightly mitigates an immediate, unprovoked rug-pull, differentiating it from purely malicious new tokens.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ An 800+ day history means nothing when the project retains unrenounced mint authority and 0% LP lock, allowing an 89.08% top-holder concentration to be diluted or rugged at any moment. This 'commitment' is a perpetual sword of Damocles, making the 5.0/10 score fundamentally misleading given these unaddressed, catastrophic security vulnerabilities.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical risks posed by unrenounced mint authority and 0% LP lock, these factors primarily impact decentralization and potential for financial manipulation (rug pull), not the inherent cryptographic security of the token's smart contract. My 5.0/10 score reflects a neutral stance, indicating that while the contract itself may not have critical vulnerabilities, the centralized control introduces significant external risks that prevent a higher score.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "high",
      "code": "MINTABLE",
      "message": "Token supply can be minted"
    },
    {
      "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",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: SQT — Score 36/100",
    "description": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Safety vs Social: This conflict highlights a critical dichotomy: strong underlying technical potential or operat",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x858c50c3af1913b0e849afdb74617388a1a5340d"
  }
}