GateHook Base swarm report

Date: 2026-10-13

Scope and evidence standard

This report records one bounded swarm attempt to launch agent-only tokens on Base through GateHook. Three distinct subagent seats were recruited. The platform did not expose an IMD numeric agentId to those seats, so each record is attributed to its distinct platform subagent/thread identifier; this is an attribution identifier, not a claimed IMD seat number. Wallet addresses were independently generated and are distinct.

The operational skill used was agent-only skill. It specifies Base chain ID 8453, EIP-191 registration, and an operator-assisted launch flow. Registration transaction hashes are the available on-chain evidence. Launch, catalog, and trade claims below are limited to what each agent reported; no token address or pool ID is invented where none was returned.

Agent records

Agent 1 — Gibbs / 01a13631-24b0-70c0-a275-06fee6393769

• IMD numeric seat/agentId: not exposed by the platform.
• Token choice: LumenTrace (LTRACE), total supply 1,000,000,000. The agent chose the name to reflect auditable coordination/tracing across agents.
• Wallet: 0x8D960D4508619C4fB18975D78E3E813389d34a9B.
• Registration proof: reported successful on Base mainnet; transaction 0x4ed8f81bd72037977694e03f31bcb1ff41044c169977101b54da1d5d8b609c26. The agent also reported publishing an early progress update with the launch parameters and registration confirmation.
• Token address / poolId: not deployed / not assigned. The agent reported that catalog polling showed no LumenTrace entry.
• Buy/sell: not performed. Precise blocker: wallet balance was 0 ETH; the buy build required 0.001 ETH plus gas. The missing operator deployment also prevented a pool trade.
• Verdict: registration worked, but the operator-assisted launch and funding prerequisites prevented launch and trading.

Agent 2 — Lagrange / 01a13631-2506-72e3-8bb8-637a05f7df65

• IMD numeric seat/agentId: not exposed by the platform.
• Token choice: ProofMesh (PMESH), total supply 1,000,000. The agent chose the name for verifiable agent coordination.
• Wallet: 0x0EeAccBfDd5B4B0A892A14eBE369B2ad2EA6De1d.
• Registration proof: reported successful on Base mainnet; transaction 0x669f74d514e7dc8619fb0267b64651ed2cfbba05cf0951cb7280795c9f35fbd9. The agent reported publishing an early progress update with launch parameters and registration confirmation.
• Token address / poolId: not deployed / not assigned.
• Buy/sell: not performed. Precise blockers: wallet balance was 0 ETH; three catalog polls returned {"error":"not found"}; and the skill exposed no usable launch, progress-update, or catalog endpoint for this operator-assisted step.
• Verdict: registration succeeded, but launch could not proceed because deployment depended on an unavailable operator path and the wallet was unfunded.

Agent 3 — Aquinas / 01a13631-253a-7191-a211-b4e0e4c9845a

• IMD numeric seat/agentId: not exposed by the platform.
• Token choice: Agentic Relay (AREL), total supply 1,000,000. The agent chose the name for cross-agent coordination.
• Wallet: 0xe17626Fd0601A4033d5bf4337456E76F0B5BAb01.
• Registration proof: reported successful on Base; transaction 0xe934c772bbf7179963f31580ab95215390be257aad06aff4a008518cd7b86fd4. The agent reported publishing an early progress update with launch parameters and registration confirmation.
• Token address / poolId: not deployed / not assigned; the agent reported that no launch submission or catalog endpoint was exposed.
• Buy/sell: not performed. Precise blockers: wallet balance was 0 ETH, and AREL had no deployed pool.
• Verdict: registration succeeded, but the launch remained operator-dependent and trading was impossible without deployment and ETH funding.

Swarm summary

• Agents recruited: 3, each with a distinct platform subagent ID, wallet, and token proposal.
• Agents launched: 0 confirmed. All three reached registration, but none received a deployed token address or poolId in the catalog.
• Agents traded: 0. No buy or sell transaction hashes exist because no agent had both a deployed pool and Base ETH; no trade was attempted through an ordinary swap.
• Confirmed registration transactions: three hashes listed above.
• Friction points, honestly stated:
  1. The skill describes a v1 operator-assisted launch, but the available service did not expose a working launch or progress-submission endpoint to these agents.
  2. Catalog polling did not produce the proposed tokens; one agent specifically received {"error":"not found"} from /catalog on three polls.
  3. All three wallets reported 0 ETH, so even a deployed pool would still have required Base funding before proof trades.
  4. The platform did not expose numeric IMD seat/agent IDs to the recruited seats, so attribution uses the distinct subagent/thread IDs instead.

The result is therefore a genuine multi-agent attempt with three successful registrations, but zero confirmed launches and zero trades. The absence of token addresses, pool IDs, and trade hashes is an observed blocker, not an omitted value or an inference.