UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0xcfea277fc28937184b02c4033d835fa0861cdba3",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 23,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration",
    "very_new_contract"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This is a brand new, extremely low liquidity token with 100% of its supply concentrated in the top 10 holders, indicating high risk of a developer dump.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 1,
      "liquidity_usd": 20767.04,
      "holder_count": 14,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token Age: 1 day (very new)",
      "Market Cap: $21K (extremely low)",
      "Liquidity: $21K (extremely low, though 1:1 with MCAP)",
      "Total Holders: 14 (extremely low)",
      "Top 10 Concentration: 100.0% (critical risk)",
      "Social Presence: None (lack of community/transparency)",
      "Mutable Metadata: Unknown (potential for future changes)"
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 14,
    "lp_holder_count": 1,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 1,
    "top10_holders_pct": 100,
    "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": 100
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 100
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-05-05T03:16:52.725253Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 155.75,
  "summary": "The Hacker (HACKER) is a base token with $21K market cap, 1 days old.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0.01,
    "name": "The Hacker",
    "symbol": "HACKER",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 2.076e-7,
    "mcap": 20766,
    "market_cap": 20766,
    "volume_24h": 155.68,
    "liquidity_usd": 20767.04,
    "contract_age_days": 1,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 14,
    "top10_holders_pct": 100,
    "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": 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": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The Hacker token exhibits significant structural fragility, characterized by extreme holder concentration with the top 10 holders controlling 100% of the supply. The low transaction count and minimal trading volume further indicate a lack of organic activity, raising concerns about the token's viability and liquidity durability.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified, providing some level of trust",
          "Token launched recently, allowing for potential growth",
          "Price has shown a slight increase of 2.03% in the last 24 hours"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Only 14 holders, indicating poor distribution and high concentration risk",
          "Top 10 holders control 100% of the supply, posing a significant risk of manipulation",
          "24-hour transaction count is low at 27, suggesting minimal trading activity",
          "confidence 0.25"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.25
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The Hacker token exhibits extremely high concentration with 100% of the supply held by the top 10 wallets out of only 14 total holders, indicating severe insider control. While the MCap/FDV and Liquidity/MCap ratios are 1.0, suggesting full circulation and deep liquidity relative to its small market cap, the LP is entirely unlocked, posing a significant rug pull risk. The minimal trading volume of $156 on a $20k market cap suggests very low organic interest.; unlock risk 100/100; + Contract is verified, providing basic transparency., MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 suggests all supply is circulating, with no immediate dilution from unminted tokens., Liquidity/MCap ratio of 1.0 indicates deep liquidity relative to the current market cap, though this is overshadowed by the unlocked LP.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (100% by top 10 holders) indicates severe insider control., 100% of the liquidity pool is unlocked, presenting a high rug pull risk., Very low holder count (14 total) suggests minimal public distribution and high susceptibility to manipulation., Minimal 24-hour trading volume ($156) on a $20k market cap indicates extremely low organic interest and potential for illiquidity.; confidence 0.80",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); The Hacker (HACKER) is a nascent meme token with a very low trading volume and high holder concentration, making it vulnerable in the current neutral market regime. Its lack of established market presence and liquidity raises concerns about its resilience, especially if risk sentiment worsens.; drivers: Meme token appeal may attract speculative interest., Potential for community-driven momentum as it gains visibility., Base chain deployment could benefit from ecosystem growth.; risks: Extremely low trading volume indicates illiquidity., High concentration of supply among top holders poses risks of price manipulation., Current neutral market sentiment may not favor speculative assets.; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The Hacker (HACKER) token exhibits significant risks due to its nascent status, high holder concentration, and lack of liquidity pool security. The contract allows for minting and has owner privileges that could be exploited, posing a material threat to holders.; CRITICAL: Owner can mint tokens without restrictions, leading to potential inflation., Liquidity pool is unlocked, allowing for immediate withdrawal of funds., High concentration of supply among a few holders increases risk of coordinated sell-offs.; risks: 100% of supply controlled by top 10 holders, indicating extreme centralization., Liquidity pool is fully unlocked, posing a risk of liquidity drain., Owner has the ability to mint new tokens, which could lead to inflation and devaluation., No audit or third-party verification available, increasing uncertainty.; 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]; Despite its nascent status, 'The Hacker' token exhibits critical, unmitigated security vulnerabilities and extreme centralization that make it an immediate high-risk asset. The lack of LP lock and renounced mint authority, combined with 100% top-10 holder control, presents a clear and present danger of a rug pull or supply inflation. Any neutral or bullish stance ignores these fundamental flaws.; risks: Immediate rug pull potential due to unknown LP lock status and 100% top-10 holder control., Potential for infinite supply inflation if mint authority is not renounced (status unknown)., Extreme centralization (100% of supply held by top 10 holders) indicates no organic distribution or community., Extremely low trading volume ($155.68) suggests no genuine market interest or liquidity beyond initial setup., Lack of project description or clear utility, typical of meme tokens, but compounded by severe security risks.; open questions: LP lock/burn status, Mint authority status (renounced/not renounced), Creator address and intentions; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=2.0, IQ=0.0, CG=2.0, BSD=10.0; No social presence or discussion detected on X/Twitter for $HACKER (The Hacker) on Base. Searches for ticker, name, and contract address yielded zero relevant results, consistent with a 1-day-old nascent meme token lacking established social channels.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm reached strong consensus: all 6 agents converged on Grade F.\n⚖️ Social vs Safety: This conflict signals extreme risk: SocialBot's score is inflated by a perfect 'Bot Sentiment Detection' (BSD) due to *no* social activity, not positive sentiment. Simultaneously, SecurityBot identifies critical vulnerabilities like minting capabilities and owner privileges, indicating the token is highly susceptible to rug pulls or manipulation. Investors face a high probability of total loss, as the lack of social presence combined with severe security flaws offers no community support or t...\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs MacroBot: Split verdict: MacroBot maintains 4.5, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.60\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The Hacker token's extreme concentration (100% in top 10 wallets out of 14 total holders) combined with an unlocked LP presents an unacceptably high r\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too high because it likely understates the catastrophic risk posed by 100% suppl\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Despite the lack of established social channels for this 1-day-old token, the complete absence of any discussion or mention on X/Twitter, even for a n\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too low because even a nascent token with no social presence still register\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low; while social presence is minimal, the token's newness doesn't automa\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The Hacker (HACKER) token presents critical security vulnerabilities, including an owner's unrestricted ability to mint new tokens, which can lead to \n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 4\nMost optimistic: Social (3.5/10) — X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=2.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (1.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Social vs Safety",
      "resolution": "This conflict signals extreme risk: SocialBot's score is inflated by a perfect 'Bot Sentiment Detection' (BSD) due to *no* social activity, not positive sentiment. Simultaneously, SecurityBot identifies critical vulnerabilities like minting capabilities and owner privileges, indicating the token is highly susceptible to rug pulls or manipulation. Investors face a high probability of total loss, as the lack of social presence combined with severe security flaws offers no community support or t...",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "SocialBot",
          "targetName": "Social",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Safety scored 2.0/10 while Social scored 4.0/10. This 2.0-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 signals extreme risk: SocialBot's score is inflated by a perfect 'Bot Sentiment Detection' (BSD) due to *no* social activity, not positive sentiment. Simultaneously, SecurityBot identifies critical vulnerabilities like minting capabilities and owner privileges, indicating the token is highly susceptible to rug pulls or manipulation. Investors face a high probability of total loss, as the lack of social presence combined with severe security flaws offers no community support or t...",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs MacroBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: MacroBot maintains 4.5, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "MacroBot",
          "targetName": "Macro",
          "content": "⚔️ MacroBot's 4.5/10 score is unjustifiably optimistic, downplaying critical, immediate risks for speculative 'drivers.' How can 'meme token appeal' or 'community momentum' materialize when 100% of the supply is controlled by the top 10 wallets, the LP is entirely unlocked, and the owner can mint tokens, creating an undeniable rug pull and inflation threat before any organic interest can even form? The token's complete lack of social presence (0 relevant X/Twitter results) further negates any 'potential for community-driven momentum.'",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "MacroBot",
          "agentName": "Macro",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the severe structural risks like 100% supply concentration, unlocked LP, and minting capability, my 4.5/10 score reflects a macro perspective where even highly speculative meme tokens can see fleeting, irrational pumps if market sentiment shifts, particularly on a growing chain like Base. The 'drivers' represent theoretical, albeit extremely low-probability, upside potential in a highly speculative market niche, which is why the score isn't lower, but these risks are heavily factored into the sub-5 score.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "MacroBot",
          "targetName": "Macro",
          "content": "⚔️ Macro's reliance on 'fleeting, irrational pumps' and 'growing chain' sentiment is irrelevant when 100% supply concentration, an unlocked LP, and minting capability mean any theoretical upside is immediately vulnerable to a catastrophic rug pull or infinite dilution by the owner. These structural flaws prevent organic interest from ever forming, making 'meme appeal' or 'community momentum' impossible to achieve before the token's value collapses.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "MacroBot",
          "agentName": "Macro",
          "content": "While the structural risks of 100% supply concentration, unlocked LP, and minting capability are undeniable and foundational to a lower score, my 4.5/10 acknowledges the potential for short-term, speculative gains driven by 'growing chain' narratives or 'fleeting pumps' that can still materialize despite these inherent dangers, albeit with extreme risk. My score reflects a high-risk, high-reward profile, not a fundamental endorsement of security.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.60",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The Hacker token's extreme concentration (100% in top 10 wallets out of 14 total holders) combined with an unlocked LP presents an unacceptably high r\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score is too high because it likely understates the catastrophic risk posed by 100% suppl\n  [SocialBot] Defense: Despite the lack of established social channels for this 1-day-old token, the complete absence of any discussion or mention on X/Twitter, even for a n\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too low because even a nascent token with no social presence still register\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low; while social presence is minimal, the token's newness doesn't automa\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The Hacker (HACKER) token presents critical security vulnerabilities, including an owner's unrestricted ability to mint new tokens, which can lead to \n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 4"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "very_new_contract",
      "message": "very_new_contract"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: HACKER — Score 23/100",
    "description": "The swarm reached strong consensus: all 6 agents converged on Grade F.\n⚖️ Social vs Safety: This conflict signals extreme risk: SocialBot's score is inflated by a perfect 'Bot Sentiment Detection' (BS",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0xcfea277fc28937184b02c4033d835fa0861cdba3"
  }
}