Community pilot
Turn this report into a standing risk desk for your group.
This BOB report is the long-form record. Send 3 tokens your community is discussing and we'll return branded reports you can drop in chat.
Bad On Base (BOB)
Base
Virtuals ProtocolDecision
6 agents
Chain: Base🐝 Help others stay safe
$BOB looks risky. Share the warning or save the card before someone in your group apes in blind.
Want this for your whole group?
Send 3 tokens your community is already discussing. We'll return branded risk reports you can drop in chat.
Start a community pilotGet alerts if this token's risk changes:
Community Risk Desk
Want this as a standing risk desk for your group?
Send 3 tokens your community is already discussing. We'll return branded risk reports you can drop in chat.
Security Checks
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); The on-chain health of Bad On Base (BOB) is concerning, characterized by extremely low transaction activity and a high concentration of holdings among the top 10 holders, who control over 95% of the supply. The liquidity is also minimal relative to the market cap, indicating fragility in trading conditions. Positives: Contract is verified, providing some level of trust; Token has been operational for 661 days, indicating some level of maturity; Current price is stable with a minor 24-hour change of -1.41% Concerns: Only 3 transactions recorded in the last 24 hours, indicating very low activity; Top 10 holders control 95.41% of the supply, leading to extreme concentration risk; Total liquidity of $3,284.30 is very low compared to the market cap of $1,909.00; confidence 0.25
AI macro (Grok); Bad On Base (BOB) is currently positioned in a highly fragile state, with extremely low trading volume and a market cap that suggests it is illiquid and vulnerable to drawdowns. The lack of sector strength and the high concentration of holdings among top holders further exacerbate its risk profile in the current neutral market regime.; risks: Extremely low trading volume (0.0x market cap) indicating illiquidity., High concentration of holdings (95.41% by top 10 holders) leading to potential volatility., Current market sentiment is neutral but leaning towards fear (Fear & Greed Index at 46).; confidence 0.30
AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has a significant concentration of supply among the top holders, which poses a risk to holder safety. While the contract is verified and has been operational for over 661 days, the lack of detailed governance information and the absence of an audit contribute to a mixed security posture.; risks: High concentration of supply (top 10 holders control 95.41%), Unknown creator/deployer governance, No audit or third-party security review available, Potential for owner privileges to be exploited; confidence 0.50
AI tokenomics (Gemini 2.5 Flash); Bad On Base (BOB) exhibits extremely poor tokenomics, characterized by severe holder concentration where the top 10 holders control 95.41% of the supply. Despite a high Liquidity/MCap ratio of 1.72, the absolute liquidity of $3,284 is minimal, and the 24-hour trading volume is negligible at $0.14, indicating non-existent real trading activity. The token's market cap of $1,909 is not supported by any meaningful distribution or trading.; unlock risk 0/100; + LP is 100% burned, removing direct rug pull risk from LP withdrawal., MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 indicates all supply is circulating, no future dilution from unlocks., Contract is verified, offering some transparency on the code.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (95.41% by top 10) poses severe manipulation risk., Non-existent trading volume ($0.14 in 24h) despite reported liquidity, indicating fake or illiquid market., Very low market capitalization ($1,909) makes it highly susceptible to volatility and abandonment., Lack of exchange breadth and all-venue volume suggests no real market presence beyond a single DEX pair.; confidence 0.90
AI contrarian (Gemini 2.5 Flash) [NEUTRAL contrarian]; Despite a 100% locked LP, 'Bad On Base' is a dead project with catastrophic liquidity and centralization issues. The token's 661-day age combined with near-zero trading volume, minimal holders, and extreme ownership concentration points to abandonment and an inevitable collapse if any significant holder decides to sell. The neutral consensus fails to grasp the severity of these fundamental flaws.; risks: Extreme price volatility and collapse due to concentrated ownership (top 10 holders control 95.41%) dumping into a tiny liquidity pool ($3,284)., Complete illiquidity and inability to trade due to near-zero 24-hour trading volume ($0.14) and only 3 transactions., Project abandonment given the 661-day age with no discernible activity or growth in holders., High potential for manipulation due to low market cap and liquidity., Lack of any clear utility or community engagement, typical of abandoned meme coins.; open questions: Mint authority status (unknown)., Creator address (missing)., Specific details of the LP lock mechanism and duration.; confidence 0.95
X/Twitter sentiment (Grok); sub-scores: OE=0.0, IQ=0.0, CG=0.0, BSD=10.0; Extremely low social presence and activity on X/Twitter. Official account shows minimal activity, with the most recent post unrelated to the token (political comment). No recent mentions, discussions, whale activity, or notable engagement specific to this $BOB on Base.; fake/coordination risk: 1/100; confidence 0.30
Why 20/100?
Agent Agreement Map
How the Swarm Reached Consensus
agents analyzed this token. Security was the lone dissenter (scored 4.0/10 vs swarm average 1.8).
⚖️ Safety vs Technical: This conflict highlights a critical divergence between perceived smart contract integrity and actual market viability. While SafetyBot notes contract verification and operational longevity, TechnicianBot's assessment of extremely low transaction activity and 95%+ supply concentration among top holders reveals severe illiquidity and centralization risks, rendering the token practically untradable and highly susceptible to manipulation despite its 'safe' contract.
⚖️ Devil's Advocate vs SecurityBot: Compromise: 4.0 → 2.8
Most optimistic: Security (4.0/10) — AI security (gpt-4o-mini); The token has a significant concentration of supply among the top holders, which poses a risk to holder safety.
Most critical: Technician (1.0/10) — AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The on-chain health of Bad On Base (BOB) is concerning, characterized by extremely low transaction activity and a high concentration of holdings among the top 10 holders, who control over 95% of the supply.
Agent Debates
2 debates triggeredCross-category conflict: Technical scored 1.0/10 while Safety scored 4.0/10. This 3.0-point gap suggests the token's strengths in Safety may not translate to Technical reliability.
This conflict highlights a critical divergence between perceived smart contract integrity and actual market viability. While SafetyBot notes contract verification and operational longevity, TechnicianBot's assessment of extremely low transaction activity and 95%+ supply concentration among top holders reveals severe illiquidity and centralization risks, rendering the token practically untradable and highly susceptible to manipulation despite its 'safe' contract.
️ SecurityBot's 4.0/10 score is overly generous; 'contract verified' merely means visibility, not security, and 'operational for 661 days' is irrelevant when the project is demonstrably dead with $0.14 trading volume. The extreme 95.41% holder concentration, coupled with no audit and unknown governance, renders its 'mixed security posture' assessment dangerously optimistic for a token that is effectively abandoned.
While acknowledging the critical risks from extreme holder concentration (95.41%), lack of audit, and unknown governance, the 4.0/10 score reflects the contract's verified status, which offers transparency for review, and its operational longevity of over 661 days, indicating it wasn't an immediate rug. These factors, despite the project's low volume, prevent a lower score by confirming basic contract integrity and persistence, even if the project is effectively abandoned.
️ Security's reliance on 'contract verified' and 'operational longevity' is misplaced; transparency doesn't negate the 95.41% concentration risk, and 661 days of operation are meaningless when daily volume is $0.14, confirming a dead project, not a secure one. These basic functionalities offer no protection against the catastrophic single-point-of-failure inherent in extreme centralization and lack of audits.
The compelling argument that 661 days of operation are meaningless with a daily volume of $0.14, indicating a dead project, significantly reduces my assessment of its operational security and viability.
Evidence Locker
While the contract is verified and has been operational for over 661 days, the lack of detailed governance information and the absence of an audit contribute to a mixed security posture.; risks: High concentration of supply (top 10 holders control 95.41%), Unknown creator/deployer governance, No audit or third-party security review available, Potential for owner privileges to be exploited; confidence 0.50.
The token's market cap of $1,909 is not supported by any meaningful distribution or trading.; unlock risk 0/100; + LP is 100% burned, removing direct rug pull risk from LP withdrawal., MCap/FDV ratio of 1.0 indicates all supply is circulating, no future dilution from unlocks., Contract is verified, offering some transparency on the code.; risks: Extreme holder concentration (95.41% by top 10) poses severe manipulation risk., Non-existent trading volume ($0.14 in 24h) despite reported liquidity, indicating fake or illiquid market., Very low market capitalization ($1,909) makes it highly susceptible to volatility and abandonment., Lack of exchange breadth and all-venue volume suggests no real market presence beyond a single DEX pair.; confidence 0.90.
AI on-chain (GPT-4o Mini); The on-chain health of Bad On Base (BOB) is concerning, characterized by extremely low transaction activity and a high concentration of holdings among the top 10 holders, who control over 95% of the supply.
Concerns: Only 3 transactions recorded in the last 24 hours, indicating very low activity; Top 10 holders control 95.41% of the supply, leading to extreme concentration risk; Total liquidity of $3,284.30 is very low compared to the market cap of $1,909.00; confidence 0.25.
The lack of sector strength and the high concentration of holdings among top holders further exacerbate its risk profile in the current neutral market regime.; risks: Extremely low trading volume (0.0x market cap) indicating illiquidity., High concentration of holdings (95.41% by top 10 holders) leading to potential volatility., Current market sentiment is neutral but leaning towards fear (Fear & Greed Index at 46).; confidence 0.30.
Unlock 6 agents · Full reasoning · Cancel anytime