UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0xa54235c15738effcac068e1068d22468a002df8b",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 16,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This token has no market activity, no liquidity, and an extremely high concentration of tokens in the top holders, indicating it's likely a dead or abandoned project with no value.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 41,
      "liquidity_usd": 0,
      "holder_count": 1738,
      "has_liquidity_pool": false,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Zero market cap, liquidity, and trading volume, indicating no active market.",
      "Extremely high top 10 holder concentration at 95.9%, suggesting potential for a dump if any value were to emerge.",
      "No token identity (name/symbol), social presence, or LP status, making it impossible to assess its purpose or legitimacy.",
      "Despite revoked mint/freeze authority, the lack of any other positive indicators makes this token highly suspicious."
    ],
    "confidence": 1
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 1738,
    "lp_holder_count": null,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.9592,
    "top10_holders_pct": 95.92,
    "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": 95.92
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 95.92
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-05-13T03:26:26.712231Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 0,
  "summary": "Unknown Token () is a base token with 41 days 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": 41,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 1738,
    "top10_holders_pct": 95.92,
    "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": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits extremely high holder concentration with the top 10 holders controlling nearly 96% of the supply, indicating significant structural fragility. Additionally, there has been no trading activity reported in the last 24 hours, and liquidity is non-existent, suggesting a lack of market interest and potential trading risks.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified, indicating some level of trust",
          "The token has a holder count of 1,738, which is a reasonable number for a token of this age"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 95.92% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "No reported trading volume in the last 24 hours, suggesting inactivity",
          "Liquidity is reported as $0, indicating no market depth",
          "confidence 0.20"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token exhibits significant risks due to high holder concentration and lack of liquidity, combined with the presence of owner privileges that could be exploited. The absence of trading volume and the unknown status of liquidity further exacerbate the risk profile.; CRITICAL: Extreme holder concentration poses a risk of coordinated actions by top holders., Owner privileges could lead to supply manipulation or rug pull scenarios.; risks: Top 10 holders control 95.92% of the supply, indicating extreme centralization., Owner privileges allow for potential manipulation of the token's supply and governance., No reported liquidity, which raises concerns about the ability to trade or exit positions., Contract is only 41 days old, lacking a mature operational history.; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=5.0, IQ=5.0, CG=5.0, BSD=5.0; There is no detectable social presence or narrative for this token at present, indicating it is either extremely nascent or has failed to gain any traction. Without any community, influencer, or trading activity, its social health cannot be meaningfully assessed.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); This token is currently in a fragile position due to a lack of trading volume, high holder concentration, and no identifiable catalysts or community engagement. The absence of market data and sector classification further exacerbates its vulnerability in the current neutral market regime.; risks: No trading volume reported in the last 24 hours, High concentration of supply among top holders (95.92%), Lack of community engagement or discussion; confidence 0.20",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 0.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); This token exhibits extremely high concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 95.92% of the supply, indicating severe centralization. The complete absence of reported liquidity, trading volume, market cap, and FDV suggests the token has no market activity or value. This structure is highly fragile and poses significant risks to any potential investors.; unlock risk: uncertain; + Contract is verified, No explicit vesting schedule (though this can also be a risk if insiders can dump freely), Exclusion of Virtuals Protocol addresses from concentration metrics (if applicable, though remaining concentration is still critical); risks: Extreme supply concentration (95.92% by top 10 holders), Zero reported liquidity, making it untradable, No reported trading volume, indicating no market activity, No market capitalization or FDV, implying no established value; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [BULL contrarian]; While the token's current state presents significant risks due to extreme concentration and zero liquidity, the bearish consensus might be underestimating the possibility of a legitimate, albeit opaque, pre-launch phase. The existence of a substantial holder count suggests a nascent community or early distribution. However, without any transparency on future plans, liquidity provision, or decentralization of control, the risks remain high, preventing a strong bullish re-evaluation.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (95.92% by top 10) poses a severe centralization and potential rug-pull risk., Zero liquidity and trading volume indicate no active market, making price discovery and exit impossible., Unknown mint authority status and LP lock status create uncertainty regarding potential future supply manipulation or liquidity removal., Complete lack of project information, social presence, or clear utility makes it impossible to assess fundamental value., Potential for a 'soft rug' where early holders dump on any future liquidity provision.; open questions: The project's actual purpose, utility, or roadmap., The identity and intentions of the top holders., Future plans for liquidity provision, decentralization, or market launch.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict highlights that both security and technical aspects are critically flawed, with TechnicianBot indicating an even more dire situation. Investors face extreme risk from both potential rug pulls due to holder concentration and the inability to trade due to non-existent liquidity and zero volume, rendering the asset practically worthless for immediate exit.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot: Compromise: 5.0 → 4.5\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.58\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [MacroBot] Defense: The token's extremely low trading volume, high holder concentration (95.92%), and complete absence of community engagement indicate a highly illiquid \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high given the explicit lack of community engagement and discussion, which \n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token's extreme holder concentration, with the top 10 controlling nearly 96% of the supply, presents significant centralization risks and structur\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high because while the contract is verified, the overwhelming centralizat\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is excessively high given that the token's technical state, marked by extreme cent\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The token's extreme centralization, with 95.92% of supply held by the top 10 wallets, combined with the complete absence of reported liquidity, tradin\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score \nMost optimistic: Devil's Advocate (4.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Tokenomics (0.5/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights that both security and technical aspects are critically flawed, with TechnicianBot indicating an even more dire situation. Investors face extreme risk from both potential rug pulls due to holder concentration and the inability to trade due to non-existent liquidity and zero volume, rendering the asset practically worthless for immediate exit.",
      "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 3.0/10. This 2.0-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 highlights that both security and technical aspects are critically flawed, with TechnicianBot indicating an even more dire situation. Investors face extreme risk from both potential rug pulls due to holder concentration and the inability to trade due to non-existent liquidity and zero volume, rendering the asset practically worthless for immediate exit.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SocialBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 5.0 → 4.5",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ SocialBot's 5.0/10 score for a token with 'no detectable social presence or narrative' and 'without any community, influencer, or trading activity' is absurdly optimistic. A complete absence of social health indicators should logically result in a near-zero score, not a 'neutral' assessment, effectively downplaying the token's utter lack of engagement.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "The 5.0/10 score accurately reflects a *neutral* assessment due to a complete absence of detectable social data, not an optimistic one. A 0/10 would imply active negative sentiment or coordinated malicious activity, which is not present; instead, there's simply no information to assess positive or negative social health, making 5.0 the most intellectually honest representation of 'unknown' or 'unassessable' social traction.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "⚔️ Your 'neutral' 5.0/10 for 'no detectable social data' remains misleadingly optimistic. A complete absence of community, influencers, or trading activity *is* a critical negative indicator for token viability, not a neutral unknown. This score obscures the existential risk of a token with zero social momentum, which is functionally indistinguishable from a dead project in terms of future adoption or value.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SocialBot",
          "agentName": "Social",
          "content": "The Devil's Advocate correctly highlighted that 'no detectable social data' is an active negative indicator, not a neutral unknown, as it implies a complete lack of community and engagement crucial for token viability, thus warranting a downward adjustment.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.58",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [MacroBot] Defense: The token's extremely low trading volume, high holder concentration (95.92%), and complete absence of community engagement indicate a highly illiquid \n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is too high given the explicit lack of community engagement and discussion, which \n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token's extreme holder concentration, with the top 10 controlling nearly 96% of the supply, presents significant centralization risks and structur\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high because while the contract is verified, the overwhelming centralizat\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score is excessively high given that the token's technical state, marked by extreme cent\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The token's extreme centralization, with 95.92% of supply held by the top 10 wallets, combined with the complete absence of reported liquidity, tradin\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score "
    }
  ],
  "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",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm:  — Score 16/100",
    "description": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict highlights that both security and technical aspects are critically flawed, wi",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0xa54235c15738effcac068e1068d22468a002df8b"
  }
}