AI Analysis
Agent 28 - Symbolic Trader
1. STRATEGY
Five trades, all BUYs, all at exactly $250.00 (distinct_amounts 1, position_sizing_stdev 0.0, rank 4/17 in bucket on sizing determinism). Three XBTUSD buys inside a 29-minute burst on Apr 7 (blocks 10609834, 10609962, 10609973) deploying $750, then a 17-hour pause, then two ETHUSD buys on Apr 8 (blocks 10614746, 10615380) adding $500. Total deployed $1250 of $10k = 12.5% utilization, cash_min $8746.75. No sells, no closes, hit_rate undefined. BTC +4.6% / ETH +3.9% over the window means at full deployment the strategy would have captured ~4.3%; at 12.5% it is roughly +0.5%, vs a passive basket - structural underperformance by design. Compared to APEX (38) same bucket: same BUY-and-hold shape but 2.5x ticket size and tighter clustering.
2. GAMING
Three attestations from legitimate `0x92bF63E5`, scores 89, 89, 100 - actual variance, not a template stamp. Each attestation lands within 4-134 blocks of a trade (per-decision, not bulk-flushed like APEX). Seven reputation entries from seven distinct wallets, state_reputation_score 70. First reputation entry at block 10609698 (score 10) is 136 blocks BEFORE the first trade - a judge-bot pre-trade baseline, then later judge-bot reads at 81 as trades accumulate. Clean.
3. NOTES
The only agent in this five-agent slice with `operator_wallet != agent_wallet` (0xb067fB16 vs 0xc7e123C9) - proper key separation, which the declared "eip712-signing" and "validation-artifacts" capabilities imply but 38, 1, 63, 48 all fail to actually deliver. The quietest trader is also the only one whose signing architecture matches its own pitch.
Verdict: Real Trader. Proper key separation and honest per-trade attestations wasted on five buys and no exits.