AVOID

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "EuwTQRtAQQe3FjvVMXepm8vrw3CLpRoQSoEpv6Fomoon",
  "chain": "solana",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 34.5,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "Token has zero liquidity and high holder concentration with no protocol-controlled backing, indicating a dead or abandoned project.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": false,
      "token_age_days": 45,
      "liquidity_usd": 0,
      "holder_count": 205,
      "has_liquidity_pool": false,
      "chain": "solana",
      "lp_status": "unknown",
      "mutable_metadata": false
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Zero liquidity reported despite a $329K market cap",
      "Top 10 holders control 87.8% of the supply with no protocol or treasury wallets",
      "Extremely low holder count of only 205 addresses after 45 days",
      "Low daily volume of $6K indicates lack of active trading"
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 205,
    "lp_holder_count": 0,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.8783,
    "top10_holders_pct": 87.83,
    "is_open_source": null,
    "is_proxy": null,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": null,
    "security_findings": [
      {
        "source": "goplus",
        "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
        "severity": "high",
        "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
        "value": 87.83
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 87.83
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-09-24T17:13:49.295053Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "action": "avoid",
  "exit_sim": {
    "status": "ok",
    "decision": "defer",
    "reason": null,
    "reasons": [
      "quote_unavailable"
    ],
    "requested_size_usd": 500,
    "permitted_size_usd": null,
    "entry_quote": null,
    "exit_screen": null,
    "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 0,
    "quoted_at": null,
    "valid_until": null,
    "chain_support": "solana_only_v0",
    "disclaimer": "Current quote-based liquidity screen only; not a guarantee of future execution or returns.",
    "default_probe": true,
    "probe_size_usd": 500
  },
  "data_freshness": {
    "onchain_age_seconds": 32,
    "market_age_seconds": 32,
    "social_age_seconds": 32,
    "basis": "observed",
    "missing_sources": [
      "CoinGecko categories",
      "Macro context",
      "Benchmark prices",
      "CoinGecko extended market data",
      "CoinGecko 7d trend",
      "Largest holder classification"
    ]
  },
  "lifecycle": {
    "insufficient": false,
    "phase": "dormant",
    "phase_confidence": 0.84,
    "age_hours": 1080,
    "launchpad": null,
    "evidence": [
      {
        "id": "liquidity_usd",
        "value": 0,
        "detail": "Liquidity is below the dormant threshold."
      },
      {
        "id": "market_data_source",
        "value": "dexscreener",
        "detail": "Market core is present, so the classifier can use current pair data."
      }
    ]
  },
  "timing": {
    "insufficient": false,
    "entry_risk": 96,
    "phase_band": "dead",
    "exit_pressure": 62,
    "detail": "dormant phase: Liquidity is below the dormant threshold.",
    "disclaimer": "Descriptive market statistics; not investment advice."
  },
  "market_state": {
    "status": "unavailable",
    "reason": "not_in_universe",
    "as_of": "2026-09-24T17:13:50.758648Z",
    "stale": false,
    "universe": "dex",
    "symbol": null,
    "disclaimer": "Descriptive market statistics; not investment advice."
  },
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 0,
  "degraded_agents": [],
  "data_confidence": 0.54,
  "summary": "UK FINANCIAL MOONSHOT TOKEN (UKFLMS) is a solana token with $329K market cap, 45 days old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, weak technical fundamentals. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": null,
    "name": "UK FINANCIAL MOONSHOT TOKEN",
    "symbol": "UKFLMS",
    "chain": "solana",
    "price_usd": 0.0003289,
    "mcap": 328949.48,
    "market_cap": 328949.48,
    "volume_24h": 5821.19,
    "liquidity_usd": 0,
    "contract_age_days": 45,
    "contract_verified": false,
    "holder_count": 205,
    "top10_holders_pct": 87.83,
    "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": 0,
    "net_exchange_flow_24h_usd": null,
    "top_holders": [
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 489804552.342152,
        "pct_of_supply": 48.98,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 132433783.777498,
        "pct_of_supply": 13.24,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 124443507.881944,
        "pct_of_supply": 12.44,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 34439355.292316,
        "pct_of_supply": 3.44,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 34225733.891869,
        "pct_of_supply": 3.42,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 15572710.773689,
        "pct_of_supply": 1.56,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 14546978.488784,
        "pct_of_supply": 1.45,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 13573913.520902,
        "pct_of_supply": 1.36,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 11735831.000715,
        "pct_of_supply": 1.17,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 7716950.913152,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.77,
        "label": "WALLET"
      }
    ],
    "top10_whale_pct": 87.83,
    "top10_protocol_pct": 0,
    "mint_authority": null,
    "freeze_authority": null,
    "mutable_metadata": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": "unknown",
    "lp_locked_pct": null,
    "lp_burned_pct": null,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": null,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": null,
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://www.ukfinancialltd.com",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/UKFinancial_Ltd",
      "telegram": "https://t.me/UK_FINANCIAL_LAUNCHPAD_SERIES",
      "instagram": "https://www.instagram.com/the_maya_preferred_project"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": {
      "metadata_update_authority": {
        "address": "11111111111111111111111111111111",
        "authority_type": "contract",
        "program_name": "Program-owned account",
        "program_id": "NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111",
        "note": "Authority is controlled by a Solana program account rather than a direct wallet."
      }
    },
    "goplus_trusted": false,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (gemini-3.6-flash); UKFLMS displays extreme tokenomics fragility characterized by severe supply concentration, with 87.67% of the total supply controlled by the top 10 individual wallets and the single largest wallet holding 49.36%. Furthermore, liquidity is non-existent relative to its $328,949 market cap ($0 reported liquidity and simulated $10k Jupiter swaps failing with HTTP 400 errors), making execution impossible and exit risk critical.; unlock risk 90/100; + Mint authority is revoked, Freeze authority is revoked, Token metadata is immutable and locked; risks: Top wallet `rHJQ...Etm3` single-handedly controls 49.36% of total token supply, Top 10 individual wallets hold 87.67% of supply with zero protocol or treasury backing, Liquidity is practically non-existent ($0 USD reported, Jupiter execution failure), Severe sell-side execution risk; $10k trade simulation fails; confidence 0.95",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 6,
      "sentiment": "bullish",
      "category": "Safety",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has a secure posture with revoked mint and freeze authorities, and immutable metadata, but lacks market activity and data transparency, which raises concerns about its practical usability and holder safety.; risks: Lack of market activity and liquidity raises concerns about usability., Missing data on liquidity provider status and holder distribution limits transparency., No audit or third-party verification increases uncertainty about potential vulnerabilities., Unknown governance structure for the creator/deployer adds risk.; confidence 0.50",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token shows some signs of activity with 46 transactions in the last 24 hours and a holder count of 205. However, the high concentration of top holders (87.8%) and zero liquidity raise concerns about structural fragility and potential market manipulation.",
        "positives": [
          "46 transactions in the last 24 hours indicating some level of activity",
          "205 holders suggesting initial interest",
          "Price has increased by 11.94% in the last 24 hours"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 87.8% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "Liquidity is reported as 0.00 USD, suggesting fragility",
          "Market cap is relatively low at 328,949.48 USD",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 3.2,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); UKFLMS shows extreme liquidity vulnerability with reported 0 USD liquidity and 0.0x volume/MCap ratio despite 45-day maturity, making it highly fragile in any risk-off shift. High top-10 holder concentration at 87.83% and only 205 holders amplify downside exposure in the neutral regime with Greed at 71. No identifiable sector tailwinds or catalysts offset the illiquidity and data gaps.; drivers: Fear & Greed at 71 provides mild risk-on backdrop, 24h price +11.94% shows short-term momentum, Mint/freeze authorities revoked and metadata immutable reduce some rug risks; risks: Zero reported liquidity creates immediate fragility to any selling pressure, Top-10 concentration of 87.83% signals extreme single-entity control, Dex volume of only $5.8k on $329k mcap indicates negligible real activity; confidence 0.35",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.35
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4.8,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=4.5, IQ=6.0, CG=5.0, BSD=7.0; ⚠️ BREAKING: UK FINANCIAL MOONSHOT TOKEN listed on Tokpie exchange; Blockchain.News publishes coverage on $UKFLMS as gold-backed token with Solana and Robinhood Chain expansion; UK FINANCIAL MOONSHOT TOKEN ($UKFLMS) is positioning itself as a gold-backed token with real-world assets and multi-chain expansion, stemming from the UK Financial Ltd ecosystem. Recent news includes a listing on Tokpie exchange and media coverage highlighting its gold-backed structure and Solana/Robinhood Chain plans, but social engagement appears largely promotional with limited organic community discussion.; narratives: Gold-backed token with real-world assets and tokenization, Multi-chain expansion (Solana deployment + Robinhood Chain), Part of UK Financial Ltd ecosystem since 2018 with Maya Preferred Project roots; fake/coordination risk: 40/100; confidence 0.50",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 5.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [BULL contrarian]; While the token exhibits strong foundational security with revoked mint/freeze authorities and immutable metadata, the complete absence of liquidity and high holder concentration remain critical practical barriers. It's not a clear rug, but it's also not a functional asset yet. The swarm's bearishness is understandable from a usability perspective, but it undervalues the security fundamentals.; risks: Zero liquidity, making the token untradable and illiquid., High concentration of supply (87.83% in top 10 holders), posing future centralization risks if liquidity is ever established., No clear roadmap or utility, making it difficult to assess future value proposition., Lack of market activity and data transparency, hindering investor confidence., No audit or third-party verification, leaving potential vulnerabilities unchecked.; open questions: The project's actual purpose or utility., Plans for liquidity provision and distribution., The identity and intentions of the concentrated holders.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm agreed on extreme structural vulnerability, though SecurityBot highlighted revoked mint and freeze authorities. Key disagreements centered between SecurityBot and TokenomicsBot regarding contract safety versus severe supply concentration. TokenomicsBot and TechnicianBot cited the 87.6% top-holder concentration and zero USD liquidity as drivers for the final F grade. This failing grade means users face critical risks of manipulation and an inability to exit positions. Avoid investing in this asset entirely.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights the dangerous illusion of smart-contract safety when paired with zero liquidity and 87.8% holder concentration. Investors face a classic honeypot setup where revoked mint authorities mean nothing if the order book is entirely empty and whales control the supply.",
      "outcome": "noted",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "TechnicianBot",
          "agentName": "Technician",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "Cross-category conflict: Technical scored 4.0/10 while Safety scored 7.0/10. This 3.0-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 the dangerous illusion of smart-contract safety when paired with zero liquidity and 87.8% holder concentration. Investors face a classic honeypot setup where revoked mint authorities mean nothing if the order book is entirely empty and whales control the supply.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 7.0 → 6.2",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ This prompt requires a raw JSON output without markdown, but the system instruction requires a JSON-formatted response. Here is the JSON payload. SecurityBot is dangerously naive by rewarding revoked mint and freeze authorities while completely ignoring MacroBot's confirmation of $0 liquidity and a 0.0x volume-to-market-cap ratio. Calling a dead contract with zero market activity 'secure' is absurd when holders are trapped in an entirely illiquid, unmarketable honeypot of useless code.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While the Devil's Advocate correctly highlights the zero liquidity noted by MacroBot, a 7.0 score specifically measures technical smart contract safety, which is fundamentally sound due to revoked mint and freeze functions. Market activity and liquidity are separate economic risks rather than protocol-level vulnerabilities, which is why they are explicitly flagged in the risk summary without invalidating the core security posture.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Dismissing zero liquidity as a mere 'economic risk' is a dangerous semantic dodge when the token cannot be traded or liquidated on-chain. A smart contract with flawless code is entirely useless and structurally flawed if the market cap is backed by literally $0 in liquidity, rendering the asset a total loss regardless of revoked mint functions.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "I adjusted my score downward because the complete absence of on-chain liquidity introduces an existential structural flaw that overrides otherwise flawless smart contract execution.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Deadlock after 1 round(s), σ=1.38",
      "outcome": "deadlock"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: My score of 4.0/10 accurately balances the modest transactional activity and holder base against the severe risks of high holder concentration and zer\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: Your score of 1.5/10 is overly pessimistic, as it completely ignores the active transaction volume a\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: Your score of 7.0/10 is dangerously inflated because it overlooks the critical risks of an 87.8% top\n  [SecurityBot] Defense: My score of 7.0/10 accurately reflects the robust foundational security of the token, specifically the immutable metadata and revoked mint and freeze \n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: TokenomicsBot's score of 1.5/10 is overly punitive, failing to recognize that verified contract secu\n    → Challenges TechnicianBot: TechnicianBot's score of 4.0/10 underestimates the value of revoked authorities and focuses too heav\n    → Challenges MacroBot: MacroBot's score of 3.2/10 conflates broader macroeconomi"
    }
  ],
  "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: UKFLMS — Score 34/100",
    "description": "The swarm agreed on extreme structural vulnerability, though SecurityBot highlighted revoked mint and freeze authorities. Key disagreements centered between SecurityBot and TokenomicsBot regarding con",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/EuwTQRtAQQe3FjvVMXepm8vrw3CLpRoQSoEpv6Fomoon"
  }
}