UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0xe6725be5ac8dff03538a9ef3e3a7a6bed256bb4f",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 31,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "Despite revoked authorities and some social presence, the extremely low trading volume relative to market cap and liquidity, combined with high holder concentration, suggests very low organic interest and potential for a slow rug.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 73,
      "liquidity_usd": 64161.22,
      "holder_count": 3138,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token is 73 days old, indicating it's past the initial launch phase.",
      "Market Cap of $193K with only $109.81 in 24h volume is extremely low, suggesting minimal organic trading activity.",
      "Liquidity of $64K is relatively healthy compared to the market cap, but the low volume means it's not being utilized.",
      "Mint Authority and Freeze Authority are both revoked, which is a positive security feature.",
      "Top 10 holders control 63.5% of the supply, with no protocol-controlled wallets identified, indicating high individual concentration.",
      "RugCheck data is N/A, which is neutral but means we rely solely on fundamental analysis.",
      "The price being $0.00 is concerning, implying the token is effectively worthless or has an extremely low value that rounds down."
    ],
    "confidence": 0.9
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 3138,
    "lp_holder_count": 4,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.6349,
    "top10_holders_pct": 63.49,
    "is_open_source": true,
    "is_proxy": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "medium",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
        "value": 63.49
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "medium",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated",
      "value": 63.49
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-21T22:13:37.116153Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 481.21,
  "summary": "Work402 (WORK) is a base token with $193K market cap, 73 days old.  Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0,
    "name": "Work402",
    "symbol": "WORK",
    "chain": "base",
    "price_usd": 0.0001931,
    "mcap": 193128,
    "market_cap": 193128,
    "volume_24h": 109.81,
    "liquidity_usd": 64161.22,
    "contract_age_days": 73,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 3138,
    "top10_holders_pct": 63.49,
    "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": {
      "website": "https://www.work402.com/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/carlosmarcialt",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/Work_402"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "Safety checks; verified source; source available; AI unavailable (AIProviderCallError)",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 1
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The on-chain health of Work402 appears fragile, characterized by low transaction activity and high holder concentration. With only 5 transactions in the last 24 hours and over 63% of the supply held by the top 10 holders, the token shows signs of potential structural weakness and liquidity concerns.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified, indicating some level of trust",
          "Total holder count is relatively high at 3,138 for a token of this age",
          "Market capitalization is modestly aligned with liquidity, suggesting some balance"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Only 5 transactions in the last 24 hours indicate very low activity",
          "Top 10 holders control 63.49% of the supply, suggesting high concentration risk",
          "Total liquidity is low at $64,161.22, which may hinder trading",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=4.5, IQ=5.0, CG=5.0, BSD=9.0; Work402 ($WORK) is a nascent project centered around the personal brand and AI-related ventures of @carlosmarcialt, who actively posts about AI agents and trading bots. Social visibility is extremely low, with no significant external discussion, whale activity, or breaking news to drive momentum.; narratives: AI agents and autonomous trading, AI infrastructure, Crypto art (secondary); fake/coordination risk: 10/100; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Work402 exhibits critical security vulnerabilities (unlocked LP, unknown mint authority) combined with a complete absence of project information, extremely low trading volume, and highly concentrated ownership. These factors create an exceptionally high risk profile, suggesting the token is either abandoned or a potential soft rug, making its current market cap entirely speculative and unsustainable.; risks: Rug pull potential: 0% LP locked combined with unknown mint authority allows for immediate liquidity drain or infinite token minting., Extreme illiquidity: $109.81 24h volume makes it impossible to exit positions without significant price impact., Centralized control: Top 10 holders control 63.49% of supply, enabling coordinated dumps., Lack of utility/purpose: 'Unknown' project description and no links indicate no fundamental value proposition., Abandonment risk: Extremely low transaction count and lack of information suggest the project is inactive or abandoned.; open questions: Mint authority status (renounced or not)., Specific project utility, roadmap, or team identity., True intent of the top holders and project deployer.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 2.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); In a risk-off regime (Fear & Greed 29), Work402 is highly fragile due to microcap size ($193k MCAP), negligible 24h volume ($110, 0x MCAP ratio), and top-10 holder concentration (63.5%), amplifying downside vulnerability on Base. Inferred AI/agents sector has narrative tailwinds from official promo, but zero trader discussion, no whale activity, and illiquidity mean it lags peers dramatically with no resilience or catalysts. Lacks liquidity to absorb volatility, likely extreme BTC/ETH beta on downside.; drivers: Loose AI agents narrative via official @carlosmarcialt activity, Base chain context (ecosystem liquidity somewhat supportive), 3138 holders indicate some distribution; risks: Extreme illiquidity (vol/MCAP 0x, $64k liquidity pool), High holder concentration (top10 63.5%) prone to dumps, No social buzz, trader sentiment, or whale signals; confidence 0.45",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.45
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 2.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The token exhibits a dangerous combination of high insider concentration (top 10 holders control 63.49%) and completely unlocked liquidity, posing a significant rug pull risk. While the liquidity-to-market cap ratio appears strong at 0.33, the extremely low 24-hour volume of $110 indicates a near-total lack of genuine trading activity, making the valuation and liquidity appear artificial.; unlock risk 100/100; + The Market Cap to FDV ratio is 1.0, indicating no future supply dilution from uncirculated tokens., The on-chain liquidity-to-market cap ratio is high at 0.33, which would normally be a strong positive if not for the other severe risks., The contract is verified on-chain.; risks: The entire liquidity pool ($64k) is unlocked, presenting a maximum rug pull risk where the provider can withdraw all funds at any moment., Extremely low trading volume ($110 in 24h) on a $193k market cap suggests the valuation is not supported by real market activity and is highly susceptible to manipulation., High ownership concentration, with the top 10 holders controlling 63.49% of the supply, gives insiders immense control over the price., The token has only 5 transactions in the last 24 hours, indicating it is effectively an abandoned or inactive market.; confidence 0.90",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.9
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "{\"analysis\": \"The swarm largely agreed Work402 presents an extremely high-risk profile, driven by critical tokenomics flaws and market illiquidity. TechnicianBot, TokenomicsBot, and MacroBot highlighted the dangerous combination of over 63% supply held by the top 10 holders and negligible 24-hour trading volume ($110), indicating severe centralization and lack of genuine activity. DevilsAdvocate further underscored the 0% LP locked, signaling a high rug pull potential. Key disagreements emerged with SecurityBot's higher score (3.5/10) based on verified source code, which other agents like TokenomicsBot and TechnicianBot challenged, arguing foundational security doesn't outweigh the severe economic vulnerabilities. The F grade signifies Work402 is highly speculative, illiquid, and prone to manipulation or abandonment due to its concentrated ownership and unlocked liquidity. Avoid investment due to extreme rug pull risk and lack of market viability.\"}",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict matters because while the token might have foundational security (SafetyBot 5.8/10), its market viability and decentralization are severely compromised (TechnicianBot 3.0/10). High holder concentration and low transaction activity indicate significant risk of price manipulation and illiquidity, despite basic code verification.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 3.0/10 while Safety scored 5.8/10. This 2.8-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 matters because while the token might have foundational security (SafetyBot 5.8/10), its market viability and decentralization are severely compromised (TechnicianBot 3.0/10). High holder concentration and low transaction activity indicate significant risk of price manipulation and illiquidity, despite basic code verification.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: SecurityBot maintains 5.8, Devil's Advocate maintains 2.0. Both positions presented.",
      "outcome": "split",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 'verified source' and 'source available' are meaningless when 0% of the LP is locked and the top 10 holders control over 63% of the supply, creating an undeniable rug pull risk completely ignored by its superficial 'safety checks'.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While acknowledging the significant risks from 0% LP lock and high holder concentration, my 5.8/10 score reflects foundational safety in 'verified source' and 'source available,' crucial for transparency and auditability. This score does not imply full safety, but rather that basic contract integrity checks passed, with the 'AI unavailable' note indicating limitations in deeper, automated risk assessment that would further penalize such concerns.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Security's 'foundational safety' from 'verified source' and 'source available' is critically undermined when 0% LP lock means the source code can be perfectly audited, yet the funds can still be instantly drained. The 63% top-holder concentration, despite source visibility, still presents an unmitigated central point of failure, allowing a rug pull regardless of the contract's 'basic integrity checks'.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "While the 0% LP lock and 63% top-holder concentration are significant *economic* and *decentralization* risks, my 5.8/10 *Security* score primarily reflects the foundational safety derived from 'verified source' and 'source available' ensuring the contract logic itself is auditable for vulnerabilities, not necessarily the project's economic stability or decentralization. My assessment focuses on inherent code integrity and transparency, which remain strong.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 1 round(s), σ=0.58",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: The token exhibits a dangerous combination of high insider concentration (top 10 holders control 63.49%) and completely unlocked liquidity, posing a s\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 5.8/10 is too high given the critical rug pull risk from high insider concent\n    → Challenges SocialBot: SocialBot's score of 4.8/10 is too high as it overlooks the severe tokenomics flaws, such as the con\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: The token's on-chain health is critically fragile, evidenced by extremely low transaction volume (only 5 transactions in 24 hours) and high holder con\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too high because a verified contract and a decent holder count do not outweig\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The token 'Work402' demonstrates strong foundational safety measures including verified sourcing and available source code, which are critical for tru\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is elevated"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "high_holder_concentration",
      "message": "high_holder_concentration"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO_PLUS",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: WORK — Score 31/100",
    "description": "{\"analysis\": \"The swarm largely agreed Work402 presents an extremely high-risk profile, driven by critical tokenomics flaws and market illiquidity. TechnicianBot, TokenomicsBot, and MacroBot highlight",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0xe6725be5ac8dff03538a9ef3e3a7a6bed256bb4f"
  }
}