AVOID

Public outcome ledger

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

RAW REPORT PAYLOAD

{
  "address": "FBFSVbKL5ztEeD1mXFxrvaR7AjVfZAjd2j4W2yMJpump",
  "chain": "solana",
  "depth": "full",
  "tier": "FREE",
  "score": 34.6,
  "grade": "F",
  "risk_level": "CRITICAL",
  "flags": [
    "high_holder_concentration",
    "very_new_contract",
    "low_liquidity"
  ],
  "free_tier_result": {
    "verdict": "UNHEALTHY",
    "reason": "This is a classic high-risk low-cap memecoin setup with extreme insider concentration.",
    "label": "AI Verdict",
    "checks": {
      "contract_verified": false,
      "token_age_days": 3,
      "liquidity_usd": 2699.67,
      "holder_count": 3195,
      "has_liquidity_pool": true,
      "chain": "solana",
      "lp_status": "not_applicable",
      "mutable_metadata": false,
      "is_honeypot": false
    },
    "risk_level": "high",
    "key_findings": [
      "Extremely low market cap of $2K with minimal trading volume of $148.80",
      "Top 10 holders control 95.7% of the total supply with zero protocol-controlled allocation",
      "Very young token age of only 3 days with high potential for a dev dump"
    ],
    "confidence": 0.95
  },
  "goplus": {
    "source": "goplus",
    "api_available": true,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "is_mintable": false,
    "is_honeypot": false,
    "holder_count": 3195,
    "lp_holder_count": 0,
    "top_10_holder_rate": 0.9571999999999999,
    "top10_holders_pct": 95.72,
    "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": 95.72
      }
    ]
  },
  "security_findings": [
    {
      "source": "goplus",
      "code": "TOP10_CONCENTRATION",
      "severity": "high",
      "message": "Top 10 holders concentration is very high",
      "value": 95.72
    }
  ],
  "scanned_at": "2026-09-05T00:49:04.063122Z",
  "cached": false,
  "cached_at": null,
  "action": "avoid",
  "exit_sim": {
    "status": "ok",
    "decision": "block",
    "reason": null,
    "reasons": [
      "safety_avoid"
    ],
    "requested_size_usd": 500,
    "permitted_size_usd": null,
    "entry_quote": null,
    "exit_screen": null,
    "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 20.25,
    "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": 27,
    "market_age_seconds": 27,
    "social_age_seconds": 27,
    "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": 72,
    "launchpad": {
      "name": "pump.fun",
      "graduation_pct": null,
      "graduated_at": null,
      "migrated_pool": "3ghCJ1VwD1KnWm3L87R2Dppygi81CbSwCbw7ykewwAL5",
      "source": "dexscreener"
    },
    "evidence": [
      {
        "id": "volume_24h_usd",
        "value": 148.8,
        "detail": "Trailing 24-hour volume 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: Trailing 24-hour volume is below the dormant threshold.",
    "disclaimer": "Descriptive market statistics; not investment advice."
  },
  "market_state": {
    "status": "unavailable",
    "reason": "not_in_universe",
    "as_of": "2026-09-05T00:49:05.089350Z",
    "stale": false,
    "universe": "dex",
    "symbol": null,
    "disclaimer": "Descriptive market statistics; not investment advice."
  },
  "liquidity_exposure_cap_usd": 20.25,
  "degraded_agents": [],
  "data_confidence": 0.6,
  "summary": "Everything is fine (Fine) is a solana token with $2K market cap, 3 days old.  Key concerns: tokenomics concerns, weak technical fundamentals. Overall verdict: F — critical risk — not recommended.",
  "token": {
    "vol_liq_ratio": 0.06,
    "name": "Everything is fine",
    "symbol": "Fine",
    "chain": "solana",
    "price_usd": 0.000002553,
    "mcap": 2497,
    "market_cap": 2497,
    "volume_24h": 148.8,
    "liquidity_usd": 2699.67,
    "contract_age_days": 3,
    "contract_verified": false,
    "holder_count": 3195,
    "top10_holders_pct": 95.72,
    "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": 879624433.566209,
        "pct_of_supply": 89.98,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 25000000,
        "pct_of_supply": 2.56,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 8374829.848697,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.86,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 5168945.030249,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.53,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 3839445.768617,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.39,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 3752147.664026,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.38,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 3404211.065698,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.35,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 2236975.776908,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.23,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 2186744.183214,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.22,
        "label": "WALLET"
      },
      {
        "address": "",
        "balance": 2111632.242231,
        "pct_of_supply": 0.22,
        "label": "WALLET"
      }
    ],
    "top10_whale_pct": 95.72,
    "top10_protocol_pct": 0,
    "mint_authority": null,
    "freeze_authority": null,
    "mutable_metadata": false,
    "lp_burned_or_locked": "not_applicable",
    "lp_locked_pct": null,
    "lp_burned_pct": null,
    "lp_unlocked_pct": null,
    "lp_lock_expiry": null,
    "lp_locker_name": "PumpAMM",
    "social_links": {
      "website": "https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/twitch-finally-lets-subscribers-send-gifs-directly-in-chat-3404802/",
      "twitter": "https://x.com/TwitchSupport/status/2094855384192127271"
    },
    "creator_balance_pct": null,
    "authority_governance": null,
    "goplus_trusted": false,
    "goplus_available": true,
    "goplus_status_message": null,
    "bundle_detected": false,
    "is_honeypot": false
  },
  "bots": {
    "TechnicianBot": {
      "score": 3.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Technical",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The token exhibits signs of structural fragility with a high concentration of holders and minimal trading activity. While there is some liquidity present, the overall market engagement is low, indicating potential challenges in sustaining healthy trading dynamics.",
        "positives": [
          "3,195 holders indicate some level of interest",
          "Liquidity of $2,699.67 provides a base for trading",
          "Mint authority and freeze authority are revoked, reducing control risks"
        ],
        "concerns": [
          "Top 10 holders control 95.7% of the supply, indicating extreme concentration",
          "24-hour trading volume is only $148.80, reflecting low market engagement",
          "Market cap of $2,497 is very low, suggesting limited investor confidence",
          "confidence 0.50"
        ],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "SecurityBot": {
      "score": 6.5,
      "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. However, it is extremely nascent with no trading activity or holder distribution, which introduces uncertainty.; risks: Lack of trading activity and holder distribution due to nascent status, No audit or third-party verification available, Liquidity is low and untested in the market, Potential for governance risks if creator/deployer information is unknown; confidence 0.50",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.5
    },
    "TokenomicsBot": {
      "score": 1.5,
      "sentiment": "bearish",
      "category": "Tokenomics",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI tokenomics (gemini-3.6-flash); The token features extreme structural concentration, with the top holder single-handedly controlling 89.98% of total supply and the top 10 combined holding 95.72%. Liquidity is extremely shallow at just $2,700 on a $2,497 market cap, resulting in failed slippage simulations for $10K sell orders.; unlock risk 90/100; + Mint authority is revoked., Freeze authority is revoked., Metadata is immutable.; risks: Top wallet `3ghC...wAL5` controls 89.98% of total supply, presenting single-point rug risk., Top 10 holders collectively control 95.72% of total supply., Liquidity is extremely thin at $2,700, causing 100% failure on Jupiter sell quotes over $10K., 24h volume is negligible at $149, reflecting non-existent organic market demand.; confidence 0.85",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    "MacroBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Macro",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI macro (Grok); Nascent Solana token with $2.5k market cap shows healthy 0.1x volume/MCAP ratio but extreme 95.7% top-10 concentration creates fragility. Neutral regime and Greed sentiment provide no tailwinds for such a low-liquidity name.; drivers: Volume/MCAP ratio at 0.1x signals genuine trading interest rather than wash activity, Mint and freeze authorities revoked with immutable metadata reduce basic rug vectors, 3195 holders achieved quickly for a 3-day-old token on Solana; risks: 95.72% top-10 holder concentration leaves token highly exposed to single-wallet dumps, Liquidity of only $2.7k and $2.5k MCAP make it vulnerable to any risk-off shift, No sector categorization, social traction, or exchange listings typical for age but still limit upside capture; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "SocialBot": {
      "score": 4.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Social",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=2.0, IQ=3.0, CG=2.0, BSD=7.0; The 'Everything is fine' meme token on Solana's pump.fun lacks any discernible official social presence or organic community, with most X/Twitter mentions being unrelated or generic shills. There are no breaking news events or significant whale activities to suggest genuine momentum.; narratives: Everything is fine meme on Solana pump.fun; fake/coordination risk: 50/100; confidence 0.40",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.4
    },
    "DevilsAdvocate": {
      "score": 5.5,
      "sentiment": "neutral",
      "category": "Contrarian",
      "reasoning": {
        "summary": "AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [BULL contrarian]; While the token exhibits high concentration and low liquidity, its strong security features (revoked mint/freeze, immutable metadata) for a 3-day-old project are significant positives. The bearish consensus overweights early-stage metrics as definitive risks, underestimating the potential for organic growth from a secure base. The current state is uncertain but not definitively catastrophic.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (95.72% in top 10) still poses a significant risk of price manipulation or large sell-offs., Very low liquidity ($2,699.67) makes the token highly susceptible to volatility and difficult to trade in any meaningful size., Lack of trading activity and volume indicates minimal organic demand or market interest currently., No clear project description or utility, making it difficult to assess long-term viability., No audit or third-party verification, despite good on-chain security features.; open questions: The true intent and long-term plans of the largest holders., Whether organic demand and liquidity will develop over time., The actual utility or purpose of the token, if any.; confidence 0.70",
        "positives": [],
        "concerns": [],
        "flags": []
      },
      "confidence": 0.7
    }
  },
  "consensus_narrative": "The swarm agreed that the token possesses robust security fundamentals, highlighted by SecurityBot noting revoked mint and freeze authorities. Key disagreements centered on the safety-versus-technical paradox, where SecurityBot favored the secure smart contract while TokenomicsBot emphasized extreme risk. This division was driven by specific data points, including a top holder controlling 89.98% of supply and a top-10 concentration of 95.72% against a $2.5k market cap. The final F grade means the user faces severe structural danger despite code immutability. Avoid investing entirely due to the extreme risk of capital entrapment.",
  "debates": [
    {
      "topic": "Safety vs Technical",
      "resolution": "This conflict highlights the dangerous paradox of a technically secure smart contract that remains an economic vacuum, leaving investors vulnerable to extreme slippage and exit scams. When Safety scores high while Technicals fail, it proves that immutability guarantees nothing if absolute holder concentration and zero liquidity trap your capital forever.",
      "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 8.0/10. This 5.0-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 paradox of a technically secure smart contract that remains an economic vacuum, leaving investors vulnerable to extreme slippage and exit scams. When Safety scores high while Technicals fail, it proves that immutability guarantees nothing if absolute holder concentration and zero liquidity trap your capital forever.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "noted"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot",
      "resolution": "Compromise: 8.0 → 6.8",
      "outcome": "compromise",
      "rounds": [
        {
          "phase": "challenge",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ SecurityBot is recklessly conflating revoked mint and freeze authorities with genuine safety while ignoring a catastrophic 95.7% single-holder concentration. Praising a secure posture on a $2.5k micro-cap with zero trading activity and extreme centralization is a glaring oversight of an imminent rug-pull setup.",
          "round": 1,
          "stance": "challenge"
        },
        {
          "phase": "defense",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "target": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "targetName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "content": "While I acknowledge the 95.7% single-holder concentration highlighted by the Devil's Advocate, this reflects its ultra-nascent deployment stage rather than a malicious trap. The score remains justified because technical immutability—revoked mint and freeze authorities—neutralizes the most critical smart contract exploit vectors, even if extreme centralization demands high caution from speculators.",
          "round": 2,
          "stance": "defend"
        },
        {
          "phase": "rebuttal",
          "agent": "DevilsAdvocate",
          "agentName": "Devil's Advocate",
          "target": "SecurityBot",
          "targetName": "Security",
          "content": "⚔️ Dismissing a 95.7% single-holder concentration as a mere symptom of an 'ultra-nascent' stage on a $2.5k micro-cap is dangerously naive when one wallet can instantly dump the entire supply. Revoked mint and freeze authorities are entirely useless against a coordinated insider exit scam when zero trading activity leaves no organic liquidity to absorb the shock.",
          "round": 3,
          "stance": "escalate"
        },
        {
          "phase": "resolution",
          "agent": "SecurityBot",
          "agentName": "Security",
          "content": "The realization that a 95.7% single-holder concentration renders revoked mint and freeze authorities entirely irrelevant against an immediate insider exit scam forced a sharp downward revision of our safety score.",
          "round": 4,
          "stance": "compromise"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "topic": "Score Calibration",
      "resolution": "Deadlock after 1 round(s), σ=1.62",
      "outcome": "deadlock"
    },
    {
      "topic": "Peer Review",
      "resolution": "DEBATE DEFENSES AND CHALLENGES:\n  [TechnicianBot] Defense: My technical analysis reveals structural fragility, characterized by high holder concentration and minimal trading activity that fails to support a he\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: SecurityBot's score of 8.0/10 dangerously overlooks the severe structural risks and high holder conc\n  [MacroBot] Defense: My 4.5/10 score balances the healthy 0.1x volume-to-market-cap ratio and neutral macro regime against the extreme 95.7% top-10 holder concentration an\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: An 8.0/10 completely ignores the critical vulnerability of a 95.7% top-10 concentration on a nascent\n    → Challenges TokenomicsBot: A 1.5/10 is overly punitive given that the token actually demonstrates organic trading activity with\n  [SocialBot] Defense: My 4.5/10 score is justified by weak X sentiment, low organic community engagement, and generic shills on pump.fun without breaking news backing it up\n    → Challenges SecurityBot: Your score of 8.0/"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    },
    {
      "severity": "medium",
      "code": "low_liquidity",
      "message": "low_liquidity"
    }
  ],
  "scan_tier": "PRO",
  "success": true,
  "og": {
    "title": "VerdictSwarm: Fine — Score 35/100",
    "description": "The swarm agreed that the token possesses robust security fundamentals, highlighted by SecurityBot noting revoked mint and freeze authorities. Key disagreements centered on the safety-versus-technical",
    "url": "https://www.vswarm.io/report/FBFSVbKL5ztEeD1mXFxrvaR7AjVfZAjd2j4W2yMJpump"
  }
}