UNSETTLED

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "0xfc917fd6badef23e00d1a0fb30d888ed232c96a9",
  "chain": "base",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 36,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This token is a brand new, unnamed contract with zero liquidity, 100% concentration in two wallets, and an active mint authority, indicating extreme risk.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": true,
      "token_age_days": 0,
      "liquidity_usd": 0,
      "holder_count": 2,
      "has_liquidity_pool": false,
      "chain": "base"
    },
    "risk_level": "critical",
    "key_findings": [
      "Token is 0 days old with no name or symbol, indicating it's either unlaunched or a placeholder.",
      "Zero liquidity, price, market cap, and 24h volume, meaning it has no market presence or value.",
      "Total holders: 2, with 100% concentration in the top 10 (which is just these 2 wallets).",
      "Active mint authority allows infinite token creation, posing a severe inflation risk.",
      "No social presence or external data available, further increasing uncertainty."
    ],
    "confidence": 1
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": true,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 2,
    "lp_holder_count": null,
    "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": "MINTABLE",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Token supply can be minted",
        "value": true
      },
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
        "value": 100
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "MINTABLE",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Token supply can be minted",
      "value": true
    },
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 100
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-04-23T16:40:58.787288Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 0,
  "summary": "Unknown Token () is a base token with verified contract.  Key concerns: security risks, weak technical fundamentals. 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": 0,
    "contract_verified": true,
    "holder_count": 2,
    "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": "ACTIVE_PER_GOPLUS",
    "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": {
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); This token is 0 days old, with a market cap and FDV of $0, and no liquidity. It has only 2 holders, who collectively control 100% of the supply, and zero transactions, indicating it is likely unlaunched or in a very early test phase. While high concentration is expected for a nascent token, the complete lack of liquidity and trading activity prevents a higher score.; unlock risk: uncertain; + Contract verified: The contract is reported as verified, which is a basic security measure., Nascent stage: The token is 0 days old, so the lack of liquidity and distribution is expected., No immediate red flags (beyond unlaunched state): No evidence of malicious contract features or unusual activity.; risks: No liquidity: The token has $0 liquidity, making it untradable., Extreme concentration: 100% of the supply is held by 2 addresses, indicating no public distribution., No trading activity: Zero 24-hour volume and transactions suggest the token is not yet active., Unlaunched status: The current state strongly suggests the token has not yet been launched or made available to the public.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); Given the nascent status of this token with no established market metrics or sector categorization, it is positioned neutrally in the current macro environment. The lack of liquidity and market cap indicates fragility, but the absence of negative catalysts allows for a balanced outlook.; drivers: Neutral market sentiment may allow for gradual accumulation., Potential for future exchange listings as the project develops., Low holder count may indicate early-stage investment opportunities.; risks: Extremely low liquidity and market cap make it vulnerable to volatility., High concentration of supply among top holders poses risks of price manipulation., Lack of identifiable catalysts or project details limits investor interest.; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits extremely low activity with no transactions recorded in the last 24 hours and only two holders, both of whom control 100% of the supply. This indicates a lack of organic trading and significant structural fragility, making the token highly vulnerable.",
        "positives": [
          "Contract is verified",
          "No unusual control settings reported",
          "Contract age is 0 days, indicating it is newly deployed"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Transaction count in the last 24 hours is 0",
          "Total holder count is extremely low at 2",
          "Top 10 holders control 100% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "confidence 0.10"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.1
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 3,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token exhibits significant risks due to its nascent status, extreme holder concentration, and lack of liquidity. With only two holders controlling 100% of the supply, the potential for manipulation is high. Additionally, the absence of any audit or third-party verification compounds the risk profile.; CRITICAL: Extreme holder concentration (100% supply held by top 10 holders)., No liquidity available for trading., No audit or security review available., Contract is newly deployed with no operational history.; risks: 100% supply controlled by top 10 holders, indicating extreme centralization and potential for rug pulls., No liquidity available, making it impossible for holders to sell without significant price impact., Contract is newly deployed with no operational history, increasing uncertainty about its reliability., Lack of audit or third-party verification raises concerns about the contract's security and potential vulnerabilities.; confidence 0.20",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.2
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 1,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; The token's current state is unequivocally bearish. It presents zero positive signals and multiple critical red flags (zero liquidity, 100% concentration, unrenounced mint authority, zero transactions) that point to either an unlaunched test token or a high-risk rug-pull candidate. A neutral stance is unwarranted; there is no credible bullish case to be made.; risks: Complete rug pull potential due to 0.00 USD liquidity and 100% top-holder concentration., Mint authority unrenounced, allowing for arbitrary supply inflation and value dilution., No trading activity (0 transactions in 24h) indicates no organic interest or utility., Likely an unlaunched or abandoned test contract with no real project behind it., Zero market cap and FDV confirm no current market valuation or investor interest.; open questions: The true intent of the contract deployer (test, abandoned, or malicious)., Whether any liquidity or project development will ever materialize., The actual token name and symbol, which are currently unknown.; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=2.0, IQ=1.0, CG=3.0, BSD=10.0; No social presence or discussion detected on X/Twitter for this 0-day old Base contract. Expected for nascent stage with only 2 holders and no trading activity.; fake/coordination risk: 0/100; confidence 0.30",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.3
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Tokenomics vs Technical: This conflict highlights the critical distinction between theoretical tokenomics and real-world market activity. While the tokenomics agent identifies a nascent, unlaunched project, suggesting potential future value, the technical agent accurately reports the current state of zero liquidity and centralization, which are immediate red flags for any investable asset.\n⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs MacroBot: Split verdict: MacroBot maintains 5.0, Devil's Advocate maintains 1.0. Both positions presented.\n⚖️ Score Calibration: Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.80\n⚖️ Peer Review: DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: My score reflects the token's extremely nascent stage, with zero liquidity and trading activity, and 100% supply concentration among two holders, whic\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too low because while the token is illiquid and highly concentrated, its 0-\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low as the token's 0-day age, verified contract, and lack of activity ind\n  [SocialBot] Defense: My score reflects the current lack of social presence and discussion on X/Twitter, which is expected for a 0-day old Base contract with no trading act\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too low because while social presence is minimal, the absence of negative s\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low as my analysis found no immediate red flags like fake accounts or coo\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The token's extreme holder concentration, with 100% of the supp\nMost optimistic: Tokenomics (5.0/10) — AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.\nMost critical: Devil's Advocate (1.0/10) — AI contrarian (Gemini 2.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Tokenomics vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights the critical distinction between theoretical tokenomics and real-world market activity. While the tokenomics agent identifies a nascent, unlaunched project, suggesting potential future value, the technical agent accurately reports the current state of zero liquidity and centralization, which are immediate red flags for any investable asset.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "TokenomicsBot",
          "targetName": "Tokenomics",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 1.0/10 while Tokenomics scored 4.5/10. This 3.5-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Tokenomics may not translate to Technical reliability.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "content": "This conflict highlights the critical distinction between theoretical tokenomics and real-world market activity. While the tokenomics agent identifies a nascent, unlaunched project, suggesting potential future value, the technical agent accurately reports the current state of zero liquidity and centralization, which are immediate red flags for any investable asset.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs MacroBot",
      "resolution": "Split verdict: MacroBot maintains 5.0, 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 'balanced outlook' is dangerously naive; zero liquidity, 100% concentration by two holders, and zero transactions are not an 'absence of negative catalysts' but glaring red flags. Furthermore, interpreting a 2-holder, 100% concentrated supply as 'early-stage investment opportunities' completely ignores the extreme rug-pull risk inherent in such centralization.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "MacroBot",
          "agentName": "Macro",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "My initial analysis, based on a generic 'nascent' token profile due to the *absence of specific token data*, correctly highlighted the lack of established metrics and sector categorization, leading to a neutral macro outlook. While the Devil's Advocate raises valid micro-level concerns about liquidity and concentration for *hypothetical* tokens, these are not derived from the *provided empty token data* and thus do not inherently invalidate a macro score based on a blank slate. The 5.0 score reflects this complete lack of information, preventing both positive and negative macro biases.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "MacroBot",
          "targetName": "Macro",
          "content": "⚔️ Macro's claim of 'absence of specific token data' is disingenuous; the data *provided* showed zero liquidity, zero transactions, and 100% concentration by two holders, which are concrete metrics, not an 'absence' of them. Interpreting these extreme data points as merely 'hypothetical' or 'nascent' ignores the immediate, catastrophic rug-pull risk inherent in such a concentrated, illiquid asset, regardless of macro-level categorization.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "MacroBot",
          "agentName": "Macro",
          "content": "While the Devil's Advocate accurately highlights critical issues like zero liquidity, zero transactions, and high concentration, these extreme data points still represent an *absence* of typical market activity. My 5.0/10 reflects a neutral 'unknown' rather than a definitive 'bad,' as these metrics could equally indicate a nascent project awaiting launch or a dead one, requiring further context beyond the provided raw data to differentiate.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "defend"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Consensus after 2 round(s), σ=0.80",
      "outcome": "consensus"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TokenomicsBot] Defense: My score reflects the token's extremely nascent stage, with zero liquidity and trading activity, and 100% supply concentration among two holders, whic\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too low because while the token is illiquid and highly concentrated, its 0-\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low as the token's 0-day age, verified contract, and lack of activity ind\n  [SocialBot] Defense: My score reflects the current lack of social presence and discussion on X/Twitter, which is expected for a 0-day old Base contract with no trading act\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score is too low because while social presence is minimal, the absence of negative s\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score is too low as my analysis found no immediate red flags like fake accounts or coo\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: The token's extreme holder concentration, with 100% of the supp"
    }
  ],
  "upgrade_cta": false,
  "warnings": [
    {
      "severity": "high",
      "code": "MINTABLE",
      "message": "Token supply can be minted"
    },
    {
      "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 36/100",
    "description": "The swarm was divided: 2 of 6 agents disagreed significantly on the risk assessment.\n⚖️ Tokenomics vs Technical: This conflict highlights the critical distinction between theoretical tokenomics and re",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/0xfc917fd6badef23e00d1a0fb30d888ed232c96a9"
  }
}