Next check
Use Telegram for the next token, keep this report as the receipt.
This CARAMELO report is the long-form record. For the next contract, start in Telegram to get the decision, score, top risks, and report link faster.
Caramelo (Caramelo)
Verdict
6 agents
🐝 Help others stay safe
$Caramelo looks risky. Share the warning or save the card before someone in your group apes in blind.
Get alerts if this token's risk changes:
Security Checks
Top Holders
Top 10: 50.6%On-Chain Security
Free scans deploy a mini-swarm with limited accuracy. Upgrade to Pro for 6 AI agents with dynamic expertise weighting.
- ✓ 6 AI agents with dynamic expertise weighting
- ✓ Bidirectional Devil's Advocate — stress-tests bull AND bear cases
- ✓ 30-day scan history
AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); Caramelo is a nascent token with a high transaction count relative to its age, indicating initial interest. However, the significant concentration among top holders and the thin liquidity raise concerns about structural fragility and potential volatility in trading activity. Positives: High transaction count of 5,685 in the last 24 hours, suggesting active trading; Market cap of $23,043 indicates a low entry point for potential investors; Mint and freeze authorities have been revoked, reducing risks associated with centralized control Concerns: Top 10 holders control 50.6% of the total supply, indicating high concentration risk; Largest holder controls 25.6% of the total supply, which could lead to price manipulation; Liquidity is thin at $11,785.57, which may hinder trading execution and increase slippage; confidence 0.50
AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Despite its nascent status, Caramelo exhibits critical red flags: unverified contract, mutable metadata, and extreme ownership concentration (50.57% in top 10, 25.6% in one address) combined with low liquidity. These factors create an immediate and high risk of a rug pull or severe price manipulation, making the token fundamentally unsound after stress-testing.; risks: Extreme ownership concentration (50.57% in top 10, 25.6% in largest holder) enabling rug pull or price manipulation., Mutable metadata allowing for potential bait-and-switch or malicious contract alterations., Unverified contract, increasing trust requirements and hindering independent security audits., Low liquidity ($11,785) makes the token highly susceptible to large price swings from concentrated holders., Lack of clear utility or roadmap, relying solely on speculative interest which can quickly dissipate.; open questions: LP lock status (critical for assessing rug pull risk)., Team status (doxxed/anon/pseudonymous)., Specific project details or utility beyond being a meme token.; confidence 0.90
AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); The token exhibits extremely high concentration, with the top 10 holders, all identified as Protocol PDAs, controlling 50.6% of the supply. While the liquidity-to-market cap ratio of 51.1% appears strong for its $23k valuation, this liquidity is very shallow, as a $10k sell order would incur a severe 66% price impact. These factors, combined with its nascent age and mutable metadata, present a high-risk profile despite the safety of revoked mint/freeze authorities.; unlock risk 0/100; + Mint authority is revoked, preventing future supply dilution., Freeze authority is revoked, preventing the creator from freezing holder assets., The market cap to FDV ratio is 1.0, indicating no uncirculated supply overhang.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (Top 10 control 50.6%)., Shallow liquidity pool leading to severe slippage (66% impact on a $10k sell)., Mutable metadata allows for potential changes to token information, which can be used to mislead investors., Nascent token (1 day old) with no established community or track record, making it highly speculative.; confidence 0.80
AI macro (Grok); Caramelo, a 1-day-old Solana meme token, is highly fragile in the current RISK_OFF regime marked by Extreme Fear (8/100) despite minor BTC/ETH/SOL gains (+1-2%). Its tiny $23k MCAP, $12k liquidity, 9.5x volume/MCAP anomaly (likely hype or wash trading), and 51% top-10 holder concentration expose it to sharp drawdowns, amplified by meme sector's high beta and poor resilience versus L1s. No token-specific catalysts or social momentum offset the liquidity vulnerability and risk-off sentiment favoring bluechips.; drivers: Mint/freeze authorities revoked (reduces rug risk slightly), LP locked via PumpAMM (standard Solana meme protection), Solana chain up +1.26% (mild ecosystem support); risks: Extreme holder concentration (top holder 25.6%, top-10 50.6%; dump risk), Thin $12k liquidity vs $218k volume (highly vulnerable to volatility), 9.5x volume/MCAP anomaly signals potential wash trading or unsustainable hype; confidence 0.60
AI security (Claude Sonnet 4.5); Caramelo is a 1-day-old Solana meme token with revoked mint and freeze authorities (positive), but faces significant nascent-stage risks. The token exhibits mutable metadata (name/image can be changed), unknown LP lock status, and high holder concentration (top holder: 25.6%, top 10: 50.57%). Market cap is $23K with $11.8K liquidity, creating material rug risk if top holders exit. Volume-to-liquidity ratio of 18.5x suggests speculative churn. While missing RugCheck data and social presence are expected for a 1-day token, the combination of mutable metadata, concentrated holdings, shallow liquidity, and PumpAMM deployment (often associated with quick-launch tokens) creates a high-risk profile typical of pump-and-dump candidates. No critical honeypot mechanics detected, but holders face immediate economic exposure.; risks: Mutable metadata allows project to change token name, symbol, or image post-launch, enabling potential bait-and-switch tactics, Extreme holder concentration: single wallet controls 25.6% of supply, top 10 hold 50.57% — coordinated dump could collapse price instantly, Shallow liquidity ($11.8K) relative to market cap ($23K) and volume ($218K) creates high slippage risk and exit difficulty for holders, Unknown LP lock status with PumpAMM custody — no verification that liquidity is locked or burned, enabling potential rug pull; confidence 0.75
X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=2.0, IQ=2.0, CG=3.0, BSD=2.0; Minimal social presence for a 1-day-old Solana meme token. Sparse mentions dominated by low-engagement promotional posts from unverified callers and paid DEX signals. No organic buzz, verified influencers, or community coordination detected.; narratives: pump.fun launch, early degen entries, short-term price pumps (claimed 5-7x); fake/coordination risk: 8/100; confidence 0.75
Why 37/100?
Agent Agreement Map
How the Swarm Reached Consensus
The swarm overwhelmingly agreed Caramelo is an extremely high-risk asset, primarily due to severe ownership concentration (50.57% in top 10, 25.6% in one address) and dangerously shallow liquidity, where a $10k sell order incurs a 66% price impact. While TechnicianBot noted a high transaction count and low entry point, DevilsAdvocate and MacroBot emphasized the unverified contract, mutable metadata, and extreme fragility in a risk-off market. The F grade signifies a fundamentally unsound token with immediate rug pull or manipulation risks. Exercise extreme caution; this token presents significant downside potential.
Agent Debates
1 debate triggered️ TechnicianBot's 'high transaction count' is likely speculative churn or wash trading given the 18.5x volume-to-liquidity ratio and MacroBot's '9.5x volume/MCAP anomaly.' A 'low entry point' is irrelevant when 50.6% of supply is concentrated among a few wallets, creating extreme rug pull risk, not opportunity, despite revoked mint/freeze authorities.
While the Devil's Advocate correctly highlights that the high transaction count likely reflects speculative churn given the volume-to-liquidity ratio, my original score of 5.0 already accounts for the significant concentration among top holders and thin liquidity, which are direct indicators of potential manipulation and rug pull risk. The revoked mint/freeze authorities remain a positive, mitigating some centralized control risks, hence the balanced score reflecting both extreme risks and a few structural positives.
️ Technician's claim that a 5.0 score accounts for concentration and thin liquidity is insufficient; a 50.6% top-holder concentration and 18.5x volume-to-liquidity ratio indicate extreme, unmitigated rug pull risk, regardless of revoked authorities. These severe structural vulnerabilities mean any 'positive' from revoked mint/freeze is overshadowed by the inherent manipulative potential for early holders to dump on new entrants.
While the extreme concentration (50.6%) and high volume-to-liquidity ratio (18.5x) are significant red flags, the *revoked authorities* fundamentally alter the risk profile, mitigating the immediate threat of developer-initiated rug pulls. My 5.0 score accounts for this reduced developer control, acknowledging the remaining market manipulation risks but not equating them to an unmitigated rug pull threat from the team.
Evidence Locker
AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Despite its nascent status, Caramelo exhibits critical red flags: unverified contract, mutable metadata, and extreme ownership concentration (50.57% in top 10, 25.6% in one address) combined with low liquidity.
These factors create an immediate and high risk of a rug pull or severe price manipulation, making the token fundamentally unsound after stress-testing.; risks: Extreme ownership concentration (50.57% in top 10, 25.6% in largest holder) enabling rug pull or price manipulation., Mutable metadata allowing for potential bait-and-switch or malicious contract alterations., Unverified contract, increasing trust requirements and hindering independent security audits., Low liquidity ($11,785) makes the token highly susceptible to large price swings from concentrated holders., Lack of clear utility or roadmap, relying solely on speculative interest which can quickly dissipate.; open questions: LP lock status (critical for assessing rug pull risk)., Team status (doxxed/anon/pseudonymous)., Specific project details or utility beyond being a meme token.; confidence 0.90.
No token-specific catalysts or social momentum offset the liquidity vulnerability and risk-off sentiment favoring bluechips.; drivers: Mint/freeze authorities revoked (reduces rug risk slightly), LP locked via PumpAMM (standard Solana meme protection), Solana chain up +1.26% (mild ecosystem support); risks: Extreme holder concentration (top holder 25.6%, top-10 50.6%; dump risk), Thin $12k liquidity vs $218k volume (highly vulnerable to volatility), 9.5x volume/MCAP anomaly signals potential wash trading or unsustainable hype; confidence 0.60.
Market cap is $23K with $11.8K liquidity, creating material rug risk if top holders exit.
While missing RugCheck data and social presence are expected for a 1-day token, the combination of mutable metadata, concentrated holdings, shallow liquidity, and PumpAMM deployment (often associated with quick-launch tokens) creates a high-risk profile typical of pump-and-dump candidates.
Unlock 6 agents · Full reasoning · Cancel anytime