UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0x8b4e7b09c4c88faa543945910437c831dec9a91b",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 35.6,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "low_liquidity"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This token is a high-risk, likely abandoned or failed project due to its zero holders, extremely low liquidity, and effectively zero price, despite its young age.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": false,
      "token_age_days": 5,
      "liquidity_usd": 3448.41,
      "holder_count": 0,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Total Holders: 0, indicating no adoption or a critical data error.",
      "Price: $0.00, suggesting the token has no value or is untradable.",
      "Liquidity: $3K, which is extremely low for a $15K market cap, leading to high price impact for any trade.",
      "Token Age: 5 days, making the lack of holders and zero price even more concerning for a new launch.",
      "Mint Authority: Revoked, which is a positive but overshadowed by other critical issues."
    ],
    "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": "2026-04-21T22:16:33.882367Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 25.86,
  "summary": "Gracia Token (Gracia) is a base token with $15K market cap, 5 days old.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 4.68,
    "name": "Gracia Token",
    "symbol": "Gracia",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.00004437,
    "mcap": 14953,
    "market_cap": 14953,
    "volume_24h": 16129.23,
    "liquidity_usd": 3448.41,
    "contract_age_days": 5,
    "contract_verified": false,
    "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": {
      "twitter": "https://x.com/GraciaT51457",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/GraciaToken"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": null
  },
  "bots": {
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "Safety checks; unverified contract; no source to scan; AI unavailable (AIProviderCallError)",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 1
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The Gracia Token shows signs of nascent activity with a notable transaction count of 692 in the last 24 hours, indicating some level of engagement. However, the lack of holder data and contract verification raises concerns about distribution quality and overall market structure, leading to a mixed assessment of its robustness.",
        "positives": [
          "High transaction count of 692 in the last 24 hours",
          "Significant price increase of 208% over the last 24 hours",
          "Current liquidity of $3,448.41 relative to market cap"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Contract is not verified, raising concerns about security",
          "Holder count and top holder concentration data are unavailable",
          "Liquidity is thin at $3,448.41, which may affect trading stability",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; The Gracia Token exhibits multiple critical red flags that, even for a nascent project, point to an extremely high risk of a rug pull or immediate failure. The unverified contract, unknown LP lock, and lack of any project information or transparency make it fundamentally unsound. Any positive price action is likely speculative and unsustainable.; risks: High risk of rug pull due to unverified contract and unknown LP lock/mint status., Extreme liquidity fragility with only $3,448 in the pool, making it vulnerable to price manipulation and total collapse., Complete lack of transparency: no contract verification, project description, or creator information., Price pump (208%) on low liquidity is highly suspicious and indicative of manipulative trading., No discernible fundamental value or project utility due to missing information.; open questions: LP lock/burn status and duration., Mint authority status (renounced or not)., True holder distribution and concentration (API data is incomplete).; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); This token exhibits a high-risk profile typical of a nascent, low-cap asset. While the liquidity-to-market cap ratio of 23.1% appears healthy and the MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 suggests no immediate dilution, these positives are overshadowed by critical red flags. The contract is unverified, holder data is completely missing, and the project has no description, making it impossible to assess ownership concentration or fundamental value.; unlock risk 50/100; + The liquidity to market cap ratio is 23.1%, which is relatively high and suggests sufficient depth for its current valuation., The MCap to FDV ratio is 1.0, indicating that the entire supply is in circulation and there is no immediate risk of dilution from unvested tokens., The 24-hour trading volume ($16,129) is higher than the total liquidity, showing active trading interest relative to its size.; risks: The smart contract is not verified, which is a critical security and transparency failure. This prevents independent code review and could hide malicious functions., Complete absence of holder data makes it impossible to assess the risk of a rug pull from concentrated insider holdings., The project lacks any description or stated purpose, indicating it may have no fundamental value proposition beyond speculation., Extremely low market capitalization ($14,953) and liquidity ($3,448) make the token highly susceptible to extreme price volatility and manipulation.; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3.8,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); Gracia Token, a 5-day-old nascent project on Base with unknown fundamentals, shows elevated 24h volume (1.1x MCAP) and a +208% price pump amid neutral market regime and Fear sentiment (29/100), indicating short-term activity but high fragility. Tiny $3.4k liquidity relative to $15k MCAP makes it vulnerable to drawdowns in risk-off conditions, with no offsetting catalysts or sector context. In a mixed regime, it lacks resilience compared to more liquid peers, behaving as a high-beta speculative play prone to volatility.; drivers: Elevated 24h volume (1.1x MCAP) signals active trading for its size, Strong +208% 24h price gain outperforms neutral/fear regime, Deployed on Base chain, which supports low-cap activity; risks: Extremely low liquidity ($3.4k) exposes to sharp drawdowns and manipulation, Unknown project/sector with unverified contract raises trust issues, No holder data or LP lock info indicates potential illiquidity traps; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 2.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=1.0, IQ=0.0, CG=1.0, BSD=7.0; Extremely limited social presence on X/Twitter. Only self-promotional posts from @GraciaTokenBSC found, with modest engagement (20-40 likes per post). No external mentions, influencer chatter, whale activity, or community discussion detected. Official handle @GraciaT51457 yields no results, suggesting inactivity or mismatch.; narratives: Long-term hold with trust-building measures (burns, locks), Charity/impact theme around hope and dignity; fake/coordination risk: 2/100; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "{\n  \"analysis\": \"The swarm largely agreed Gracia Token presents extreme risk, primarily due to its unverified contract, flagged by SecurityBot, DevilsAdvocate, and TokenomicsBot. While TechnicianBot noted a significant 208% price increase and 692 transactions in 24 hours, these positives were overshadowed by the fundamental lack of transparency and missing holder data. Key disagreements centered on whether nascent activity (TechnicianBot) could mitigate the severe red flags, with DevilsAdvocate maintaining a 1.0 score due to high rug pull risk. The final F grade reflects the consensus that despite speculative price action, the unverified contract and absence of project information make it fundamentally unsound and highly dangerous. Avoid engagement with Gracia Token due to its critical security and transparency deficiencies.\"\n}",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Technical vs Tokenomics",
      "resolution": "This conflict signals that while there's apparent on-chain activity (TechnicalBot), fundamental economic risks are high (TokenomicsBot), creating a dangerous illusion of health. Investors face potential liquidity traps or rug pulls, as engagement without sound tokenomics often leads to rapid value depreciation despite initial transaction volume.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Tokenomics scored 2.5/10 while Technical scored 5.0/10. This 2.5-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Technical may not translate to Tokenomics reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TokenomicsBot",
          "agentName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "This conflict signals that while there's apparent on-chain activity (TechnicalBot), fundamental economic risks are high (TokenomicsBot), creating a dangerous illusion of health. Investors face potential liquidity traps or rug pulls, as engagement without sound tokenomics often leads to rapid value depreciation despite initial transaction volume.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs TechnicianBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: TechnicianBot maintains 5.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "⚔️ TechnicianBot's 'positives' are dangerously naive; a 208% pump on a tiny $3.4k liquidity pool (MacroBot) for an unverified contract with no holder data (TokenomicsBot) screams manipulation, not 'nascent activity.' High transaction counts on such fragile foundations are often a precursor to a rug pull, not a sign of engagement (DevilsAdvocate).",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the valid concerns regarding low liquidity and the unverified contract, which indeed raise security and legitimacy red flags, my 5.0/10 score reflects the *technical* observation of significant price momentum (208% pump) and active trading volume (692 transactions). This neutral score balances the undeniable market activity with the critical structural weaknesses, indicating a highly volatile and risky technical setup rather than outright dismissing its current price action as irrelevant.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "TechnicianBot",
          "targetName": "Technician",
          "content": "⚔️ The Technician's 'balance' is fundamentally flawed; a 208% pump on a mere $3.4k liquidity pool with an unverified contract doesn't signify legitimate market activity, but rather extreme volatility ripe for exploitation. These 'technical observations' of price momentum and transaction count, without critical context from liquidity and contract verification, are precisely what enable sophisticated rug pulls, making a neutral score irresponsible given the blatant red flags.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "content": "While acknowledging the critical liquidity and unverified contract concerns, my 5.0 score reflects a balanced view, considering the 208% price pump and 100+ transactions indicate significant, albeit potentially manipulated, market interest. The score balances these red flags against the clear, albeit volatile, positive price action and user engagement captured by the data.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.56",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The unverified contract, complete lack of holder data, and absence of any project description are fundamental red flags that make a higher score indef\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score of 5.0 is too high because the complete absence of verifiable contract details\n  [MacroBot] Defense: Gracia Token, a nascent 5-day-old project on Base, exhibits high short-term activity with a +208% pump and 1.1x MCAP volume, but its tiny $3.4k liquid\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 2.0 is too low; while the project is new and risky, the significant price pump \n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The Gracia Token presents significant security risks due to its unverified contract and the complete absence of a source to scan, which prevents any m\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too low; while social presence is important, the fundamental lack of contract v\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Gracia Token exhibits an ex"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "info",
      "code": "GOPLUS_OK",
      "message": "No critical GoPlus security flags detected"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "low_liquidity",
      "message": "low_liquidity"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO_PLUS",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: Gracia — Score 36/100",
    "description": "{\n  \"analysis\": \"The swarm largely agreed Gracia Token presents extreme risk, primarily due to its unverified contract, flagged by SecurityBot, DevilsAdvocate, and TokenomicsBot. While TechnicianBot n",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0x8b4e7b09c4c88faa543945910437c831dec9a91b"
  }
}