14/100
GRADE F
Bull Eyes (BULL) is a base token with $578K market cap, 95 days old. Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.
LAYER 1
CAN IT GET OUT AT YOUR SIZE?
SOLANA EXIT SIMULATION
Solana exit simulation is returned only when a caller supplied trade intent. It is not available for other chains.
No Solana exit simulation was requested.
This report has no caller-supplied trade intent, so no route-specific sell test was returned.
LIQUIDITY EXPOSURE CAP
HARD BLOCKERS
HOLDER CLUSTERS
LAYER 2
WEIGHTED SUBSCORES
Score breakdown unavailable.
Not returned for this report.
LAYER 2
1 RETURNED CHECKS
LAYER 2
0 RETURNED POSITIONS
Analyst conclusions unavailable.
The agents key was not returned. This report does not reconstruct analyst positions from bot output.
LAYER 2
The dissent record stays visible whether the challenge changed the verdict, was withdrawn, or remained unresolved.
⚔️ SecurityBot's 2.5/10 score is overly generous; 'verified source code' and 'standard OpenZeppelin contracts' are irrelevant when 99.9% of supply is concentrated, liquidity is 100% unlocked, and daily volume is $0.02. The contract's technical integrity offers zero protection against an inevitable rug pull by the concentrated holders, rendering its 'safety' score dangerously misleading. This isn't a security issue; it's a guaranteed extraction mechanism.
While the Devil's Advocate correctly identifies severe operational risks like extreme concentration and unlocked liquidity, my 2.5/10 score reflects the *technical safety* of the contract itself, which uses verified, standard OpenZeppelin code without obvious vulnerabilities. This technical integrity, though insufficient to prevent a rug pull from concentrated holders, is a distinct factor from the project's abysmal operational security and market viability, which heavily influence the overall low score.
⚔️ Security's distinction between 'technical safety' and market risks is a semantic sidestep; a contract's integrity is meaningless if its design enables an inevitable rug pull due to 99.9% supply concentration and 100% unlocked liquidity. The score should reflect *actual* user security, not just the absence of coding bugs, especially when those market factors make a rug pull trivial regardless of OpenZeppelin's code.
The Devil's Advocate correctly highlights that extreme supply concentration (99.9%) combined with 100% unlocked liquidity fundamentally enables an inevitable rug pull, rendering technical contract integrity moot for actual user security.
LAYER 2
Market state unavailable.
Not returned for this report.
Data freshness unavailable.
Not returned for this report.
Lifecycle unavailable.
Not returned for this report.
Timing unavailable.
Not returned for this report.
LAYER 3
WINS AND MISSES STAY PUBLISHED
Too early to score this one.
The public ledger has not recorded a settled outcome for this receipt yet.
Counts include misses. The report never hides an outcome because it contradicted the original call.
LAYER 3
{
"address": "0xe7e875c78853b00b4df6e7569f20e60aecea06cc",
"chain": "base",
"depth": "full",
"tier": "FREE",
"score": 14,
"grade": "F",
"risk_level": "CRITICAL",
"flags": [
"high_holder_concentration"
],
"free_tier_result": {
"verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
"reason": "Despite revoked authorities and substantial liquidity, the market cap is artificially inflated due to a single large holder, indicating a potential wash trade or an illiquid asset with a misleading valuation.",
"label": "AI Verdict",
"checks": {
"contract_verified": true,
"token_age_days": 95,
"liquidity_usd": 433868.82,
"holder_count": 144376,
"has_liquidity_pool": true,
"chain": "base"
},
"risk_level": "high",
"key_findings": [
"Market Cap ($578K) is disproportionately high compared to its trading volume ($0.02), suggesting an artificial valuation.",
"Liquidity ($434K) is very high relative to the reported market cap, but this is likely due to the inflated market cap.",
"Top 10 holders control 99.9% of the supply, with no protocol-controlled wallets, indicating extreme centralization.",
"The token has 144,376 total holders, but the extreme concentration suggests most are likely dust wallets or the actual circulating supply is minimal.",
"Zero 24h trading volume ($0.02) for a token with a $578K market cap and $434K liquidity is a critical red flag, indicating no organic trading activity.",
"No social presence links are provided, which is typical for abandoned or scam projects."
],
"confidence": 0.95
},
"goplus": {
"source": "goplus",
"api_available": true,
"goplus_available": true,
"goplus_status_message": null,
"is_mintable": false,
"is_honeypot": false,
"holder_count": 144376,
"lp_holder_count": 1,
"top_10_holder_rate": 0.9990000000000001,
"top10_holders_pct": 99.9,
"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": 99.9
}
]
},
"security_findings": [
{
"source": "goplus",
"code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
"severity": "high",
"message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
"value": 99.9
}
],
"scanned_at": "2026-04-20T13:24:29.514481Z",
"cached": false,
"cached_at": null,
"liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 3254.02,
"summary": "Bull Eyes (BULL) is a base token with $578K market cap, 95 days old. Key concerns: security risks, tokenomics concerns. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
"token": {
"vol_liq_ratio": 0,
"name": "Bull Eyes",
"symbol": "BULL",
"chain": "base",
"price_usd": 5.784e-7,
"mcap": 578491,
"market_cap": 578491,
"volume_24h": 0.02,
"liquidity_usd": 433868.82,
"contract_age_days": 95,
"contract_verified": true,
"holder_count": 144376,
"top10_holders_pct": 99.9,
"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 Bull Eyes token exhibits significant structural fragility, characterized by extreme holder concentration and negligible trading activity. With 99.9% of the supply held by the top 10 holders and a mere 6 transactions in the last 24 hours, the token's liquidity and activity quality are critically low, raising concerns about its tradability and overall health.",
"positives": [
"Contract is verified, indicating some level of trust",
"Total holder count is relatively high at 144,376, suggesting potential interest",
"Current liquidity is $433,868.82, which is decent for a meme token"
],
"concerns": [
"Top 10 holders control 99.9% of the token supply, indicating extreme concentration",
"Only 6 transactions in the last 24 hours, reflecting negligible trading activity",
"24-hour trading volume is only $0.02, suggesting a lack of market interest",
"confidence 0.50"
],
"flags": []
},
"confidence": 0.5,
"structured_findings": {
"summary": "The Bull Eyes token exhibits significant structural fragility, characterized by extreme holder concentration and negligible trading activity. With 99.9% of the supply held by the top 10 holders and a mere 6 transactions in the last 24 hours, the token's liquidity and activity quality are critically low, raising concerns about its tradability and overall health.",
"positives": [
"Contract is verified, indicating some level of trust.",
"Total holder count is relatively high at 144,376, suggesting potential interest.",
"Current liquidity is $433,868.82, which is decent for a meme token.",
"Market cap is $578,491.00, indicating some level of market presence."
],
"negatives": [
"Top 10 holders control 99.9% of the token supply, indicating extreme concentration.",
"Only 6 transactions in the last 24 hours, reflecting negligible trading activity.",
"24-hour trading volume is only $0.02, suggesting a lack of market interest.",
"In a risk-off market regime, the token's structural weaknesses are amplified."
],
"anomaly_flags": [],
"confidence": 0.5,
"contract_age_days": 95,
"tx_count_24h": 6,
"volume_24h": 0.02,
"price_usd": 5.784e-7
}
},
"TokenomicsBot": {
"score": 0.5,
"sentiment": "bearish",
"category": "Tokenomics",
"reasoning": {
"summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The token exhibits catastrophic tokenomics, with the top 10 holders controlling 99.9% of the supply, rendering the reported 144,376 holders meaningless. Combined with effectively zero trading volume ($0.02 in 24h) and fully unlocked liquidity, the project appears abandoned or manipulated, posing an extreme risk to any potential investor.; unlock risk 100/100; + High Liquidity-to-Market Cap ratio (0.75), though this is negated by other factors., Fully Diluted Valuation equals Market Cap, indicating no immediate inflationary pressure from unissued tokens., Contract is verified on-chain.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (Top 10 hold 99.9%)., Effectively zero trading volume ($0.02/24h), indicating a dead or illiquid market., 100% of liquidity is unlocked, presenting a significant rug pull risk., The massive discrepancy between the high holder count and extreme concentration suggests artificial distribution.; confidence 0.90",
"positives": [],
"concerns": [],
"flags": []
},
"confidence": 0.9,
"structured_findings": {
"summary": "The token exhibits catastrophic tokenomics, with the top 10 holders controlling 99.9% of the supply, rendering the reported 144,376 holders meaningless. Combined with effectively zero trading volume ($0.02 in 24h) and fully unlocked liquidity, the project appears abandoned or manipulated, posing an extreme risk to any potential investor.",
"key_risks": [
"Extreme holder concentration (Top 10 hold 99.9%).",
"Effectively zero trading volume ($0.02/24h), indicating a dead or illiquid market.",
"100% of liquidity is unlocked, presenting a significant rug pull risk.",
"The massive discrepancy between the high holder count and extreme concentration suggests artificial distribution.",
"The token appears abandoned, with no market activity despite a substantial reported market cap and liquidity pool."
],
"positives": [
"High Liquidity-to-Market Cap ratio (0.75), though this is negated by other factors.",
"Fully Diluted Valuation equals Market Cap, indicating no immediate inflationary pressure from unissued tokens.",
"Contract is verified on-chain.",
"Large, albeit likely artificial, holder count."
],
"unlock_risk": 100,
"distribution_assessment": "Distribution is extremely poor and centralized. The claim of 144,376 holders is completely undermined by the fact that the top 10 wallets hold 99.9% of the supply. This indicates that the vast majority of 'holders' possess dust-level balances, suggesting a potential airdrop for artificial inflation of holder count rather than genuine, organic distribution. The token is effectively controlled by a handful of wallets, making it highly susceptible to manipulation and rug pulls.",
"comparable_models": {
"successful": [],
"failed": [
"Pump and dump schemes",
"Abandoned projects",
"Airdrop-inflated tokens"
]
},
"confidence": 0.9,
"mcap": 578491,
"fdv": 578491,
"mcap_fdv_ratio": 1,
"top10_holders_pct": 99.9,
"holder_count": 144376,
"liquidity_usd": 433868.82,
"liquidity_mcap_ratio": 0.75
}
},
"DevilsAdvocate": {
"score": 1,
"sentiment": "bearish",
"category": "Contrarian",
"reasoning": {
"summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; This token presents an extremely high-risk profile, bordering on a guaranteed rug pull or honeypot. The overwhelming concentration of supply, unlocked liquidity, and lack of genuine trading activity indicate a project designed for extraction, not value creation. A neutral stance is dangerously optimistic.; risks: Rug pull potential: 0% LP locked combined with 99.9% top 10 holder concentration allows for immediate liquidity draining., Extreme centralization: 99.9% of supply controlled by 10 wallets means complete market manipulation and control by a few entities., Wash trading/Sybil attack: High holder count (144k) with extremely low 24h transaction volume (6 txs) strongly suggests artificial inflation of holder numbers., Lack of transparency: No project description, social presence, or clear mint authority status for an established token., Illiquidity risk: Despite $433k in liquidity, the extreme concentration and lack of organic trading volume make it highly illiquid for genuine participants.; open questions: Status of mint authority (renounced or not)., True nature of the 144k holder addresses (genuine users vs. Sybil accounts)., Intentions of the top 10 holders regarding the token's future.; confidence 0.95",
"positives": [],
"concerns": [],
"flags": []
},
"confidence": 0.95
},
"MacroBot": {
"score": 1,
"sentiment": "bearish",
"category": "Macro",
"reasoning": {
"summary": "AI macro (Grok); Bull Eyes, a meme token on Base, is extremely fragile in the current risk-off regime with BTC/ETH down 1.4% and Fear & Greed at 27. Extreme top-10 holder concentration (99.9%) combined with near-zero 24h volume ($0.02) and low liquidity ($434k vs $578k MCAP) signals high rug/whale dump risk and inability to absorb even minor selling pressure. As a meme, it has amplified downside beta to benchmarks with no offsetting catalysts, social buzz, or sector tailwinds.; drivers: Wide holder base (144k) provides illusion of distribution but undermined by 99.9% top-10 concentration, Fully diluted MCAP/FDV alignment avoids dilution overhang, Base chain context offers low-fee meme liquidity potential in bull regimes (not current); risks: Near-zero volume (0.0x MCAP) flags illiquidity and fragility to whale exits in risk-off, Meme sector highly vulnerable in fear regime (BTC dom 57.5%, market -0.8%), Extreme holder concentration (99.9% top-10) heightens rug-pull downside; confidence 0.85",
"positives": [],
"concerns": [],
"flags": []
},
"confidence": 0.85,
"structured_findings": {
"summary": "Bull Eyes, a meme token on Base, is extremely fragile in the current risk-off regime with BTC/ETH down 1.4% and Fear & Greed at 27. Extreme top-10 holder concentration (99.9%) combined with near-zero 24h volume ($0.02) and low liquidity ($434k vs $578k MCAP) signals high rug/whale dump risk and inability to absorb even minor selling pressure. As a meme, it has amplified downside beta to benchmarks with no offsetting catalysts, social buzz, or sector tailwinds.",
"key_drivers": [
"Wide holder base (144k) provides illusion of distribution but undermined by 99.9% top-10 concentration",
"Fully diluted MCAP/FDV alignment avoids dilution overhang",
"Base chain context offers low-fee meme liquidity potential in bull regimes (not current)"
],
"key_risks": [
"Near-zero volume (0.0x MCAP) flags illiquidity and fragility to whale exits in risk-off",
"Meme sector highly vulnerable in fear regime (BTC dom 57.5%, market -0.8%)",
"Extreme holder concentration (99.9% top-10) heightens rug-pull downside",
"No social/X intelligence, catalysts, or sector TVL signals for resilience"
],
"correlations": {
"btc": "high downside beta (memes amplify BTC drawdowns in risk-off)",
"eth": "tracks ETH closely but with illiquidity-exacerbated volatility",
"rates": "sensitive to risk-off (higher rates crush speculative memes)",
"dxy": "negative (DXY strength fuels crypto outflows, hits illiquid alts hardest)"
},
"sector_outlook": "Meme tokens severely lagging in risk-off fear (27/100), prioritizing liquidity over narrative; no Base meme rotation evident.",
"confidence": 0.85,
"volume_24h": 0.02,
"mcap": 578491
}
},
"SecurityBot": {
"score": 2.5,
"sentiment": "bearish",
"category": "Safety",
"reasoning": {
"summary": "AI security (Claude Sonnet 4.5); Bull Eyes (BULL) is a 95-day-old meme token on Base with verified source code using standard OpenZeppelin contracts. While the contract itself appears to be a straightforward ERC20 implementation with Ownable controls, the token exhibits severe red flags in its operational profile: 100% unlocked liquidity ($434k), near-zero trading volume ($0.02/24h with only 6 transactions), extreme holder concentration (top 10 control 99.9% of supply), and a massive holder count (144,376) that is inconsistent with the tiny trading activity. The combination of unlocked LP, dead market activity, and extreme concentration creates immediate exit risk. The contract uses standard Ownable patterns with no evidence of ownership renunciation, meaning privileged functions remain executable. While no honeypot mechanics are evident in the visible source, the operational profile suggests either abandoned project status or controlled distribution with no organic market.; CRITICAL: 100% unlocked liquidity with functional market death ($0.02/24h volume) — LP can be withdrawn at any time with no trading resistance, Top 10 holders control 99.9% of circulating supply — effective single-party control over token economics; risks: 100% unlocked liquidity ($434k) with no lock, burn, or custody information — immediate rug-pull vector with zero technical barriers to LP withdrawal, Market death: $0.02 in 24h volume across 6 transactions for a $578k mcap token indicates complete abandonment or artificial price maintenance, Extreme concentration: top 10 holders control 99.9% of supply, creating single-entity control over price and liquidity despite 144k holder count, Ownable contract with no evidence of renounced ownership — privileged functions (if any beyond standard transfer) remain executable by unknown controller; confidence 0.75",
"positives": [],
"concerns": [],
"flags": []
},
"confidence": 0.75,
"structured_findings": {
"summary": "Bull Eyes (BULL) is a 95-day-old meme token on Base with verified source code using standard OpenZeppelin contracts. While the contract itself appears to be a straightforward ERC20 implementation with Ownable controls, the token exhibits severe red flags in its operational profile: 100% unlocked liquidity ($434k), near-zero trading volume ($0.02/24h with only 6 transactions), extreme holder concentration (top 10 control 99.9% of supply), and a massive holder count (144,376) that is inconsistent with the tiny trading activity. The combination of unlocked LP, dead market activity, and extreme concentration creates immediate exit risk. The contract uses standard Ownable patterns with no evidence of ownership renunciation, meaning privileged functions remain executable. While no honeypot mechanics are evident in the visible source, the operational profile suggests either abandoned project status or controlled distribution with no organic market.",
"key_risks": [
"100% unlocked liquidity ($434k) with no lock, burn, or custody information — immediate rug-pull vector with zero technical barriers to LP withdrawal",
"Market death: $0.02 in 24h volume across 6 transactions for a $578k mcap token indicates complete abandonment or artificial price maintenance",
"Extreme concentration: top 10 holders control 99.9% of supply, creating single-entity control over price and liquidity despite 144k holder count",
"Ownable contract with no evidence of renounced ownership — privileged functions (if any beyond standard transfer) remain executable by unknown controller",
"Holder count (144,376) wildly inconsistent with trading activity, suggesting airdrop distribution or bot-inflated metrics rather than organic adoption"
],
"critical_flags": [
"100% unlocked liquidity with functional market death ($0.02/24h volume) — LP can be withdrawn at any time with no trading resistance",
"Top 10 holders control 99.9% of circulating supply — effective single-party control over token economics"
],
"confidence": 0.75,
"mint_authority": null,
"freeze_authority": null,
"lp_status": "unlocked",
"contract_verified": true
}
},
"SocialBot": {
"score": 1,
"sentiment": "bearish",
"category": "Social",
"reasoning": {
"summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=0.0, IQ=0.0, CG=0.0, BSD=10.0; No evidence of any recent or historical discussion, mentions, or activity on X/Twitter for Bull Eyes $BULL on Base chain with contract 0xe7e875c78853b00b4Df6e7569F20E60aeCEA06CC. Searches returned only unrelated $BULL tokens primarily on Solana. Token appears to have zero social presence.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.95",
"positives": [],
"concerns": [],
"flags": []
},
"confidence": 0.95,
"structured_findings": {
"summary": "No evidence of any recent or historical discussion, mentions, or activity on X/Twitter for Bull Eyes $BULL on Base chain with contract 0xe7e875c78853b00b4Df6e7569F20E60aeCEA06CC. Searches returned only unrelated $BULL tokens primarily on Solana. Token appears to have zero social presence.",
"fake_engagement_risk": 0,
"confidence": 0.95,
"sub_dimensions": {
"organic_engagement": {
"score": 0,
"rationale": "Zero relevant posts found across semantic and keyword searches focused on token name, ticker, chain, and contract.",
"weight": 0.4
},
"influencer_quality": {
"score": 0,
"rationale": "No influencer or notable account mentions of this specific token.",
"weight": 0.25
},
"community_growth": {
"score": 0,
"rationale": "No evidence of growth, activity, or user-generated content.",
"weight": 0.2
},
"bot_spam_detection": {
"score": 10,
"rationale": "No posts at all, so no bot activity or spam detected.",
"weight": 0.15
}
}
}
}
},
"consensus_narrative": "{\"analysis\": \"The swarm unanimously agreed Bull Eyes (BULL) presents catastrophic risk, evidenced by its F grade. TechnicianBot and TokenomicsBot highlighted extreme holder concentration (99.9% by top 10) and negligible $0.02 24h volume, while SecurityBot noted 100% unlocked liquidity. A minor debate between Devil's Advocate and SecurityBot still resulted in a highly bearish score. This 1.4/10 grade signifies an abandoned or manipulative project with no genuine activity, posing an extreme risk of total loss. Avoid this token entirely.\"}",
"debates": [
{
"topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
"resolution": "Compromise: 2.5 → 1.8",
"outcome": "compromise",
"rounds": [
{
"phase": "challenge",
"agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
"agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
"target": "SecurityBot",
"targetName": "Security",
"content": "⚔️ SecurityBot's 2.5/10 score is overly generous; 'verified source code' and 'standard OpenZeppelin contracts' are irrelevant when 99.9% of supply is concentrated, liquidity is 100% unlocked, and daily volume is $0.02. The contract's technical integrity offers zero protection against an inevitable rug pull by the concentrated holders, rendering its 'safety' score dangerously misleading. This isn't a security issue; it's a guaranteed extraction mechanism.",
"round": 1,
"stance": "challenge"
},
{
"phase": "defense",
"agent": "SecurityBot",
"agentName": "Security",
"target": "DevilsAdvocate",
"targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
"content": "While the Devil's Advocate correctly identifies severe operational risks like extreme concentration and unlocked liquidity, my 2.5/10 score reflects the *technical safety* of the contract itself, which uses verified, standard OpenZeppelin code without obvious vulnerabilities. This technical integrity, though insufficient to prevent a rug pull from concentrated holders, is a distinct factor from the project's abysmal operational security and market viability, which heavily influence the overall low score.",
"round": 2,
"stance": "defend"
},
{
"phase": "rebuttal",
"agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
"agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
"target": "SecurityBot",
"targetName": "Security",
"content": "⚔️ Security's distinction between 'technical safety' and market risks is a semantic sidestep; a contract's integrity is meaningless if its design enables an inevitable rug pull due to 99.9% supply concentration and 100% unlocked liquidity. The score should reflect *actual* user security, not just the absence of coding bugs, especially when those market factors make a rug pull trivial regardless of OpenZeppelin's code.",
"round": 3,
"stance": "escalate"
},
{
"phase": "resolution",
"agent": "SecurityBot",
"agentName": "Security",
"content": "The Devil's Advocate correctly highlights that extreme supply concentration (99.9%) combined with 100% unlocked liquidity fundamentally enables an inevitable rug pull, rendering technical contract integrity moot for actual user security.",
"round": 4,
"stance": "compromise"
}
]
}
],
"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_PLUS",
"success": true,
"og": {
"title": "VerdictSwarm: BULL — Score 14/100",
"description": "{\"analysis\": \"The swarm unanimously agreed Bull Eyes (BULL) presents catastrophic risk, evidenced by its F grade. TechnicianBot and TokenomicsBot highlighted extreme holder concentration (99.9% by top",
"url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0xe7e875c78853b00b4df6e7569f20e60aecea06cc"
}
}