LARP check · Robinhood Chain
$GLOAM
$GLOAM
Robinhood Chain5 claims read from its README and site. Three different working parts of it answered our own reads, among them: its API at gloam.trade/api/screen answered with data (fields ok, list, chainalysis); its MCP server at gloam.trade/mcp answered and listed 8 tools (gloam_info, gloam_networks, gloam_vault_stats, gloam_create_payment_request).
Read 12 h ago · mcap at check $297.8k · now $368.6k · since check +23.8%
What it says, and what we found
- not read“Meet $GLOAM, the Gloam token. Governance, buybacks and private holding, live on Robinhood Chain.” its sitechainno burn of $GLOAM in the last 30 days (chain)
- partly“Gloam never holds your keys, and there is no admin withdraw.” its siteits API at gloam.trade/api/screen answered with data (fields ok, list, chainalysis)
- found“Private balances on Tempo and Robinhood Chain testnet. Settlement stays public, the amounts and the people stay private.” its siteits API at gloam.trade/api/screen answered with data (fields ok, list, chainalysis); its MCP server at gloam.trade/mcp answered and listed 8 tools (gloam_info, gloam_networks, gloam_vault_stats, gloam_create_payment_request)
- partly“Gloam proofs are made on your device, never on our servers.” its siteits API at gloam.trade/api/screen answered with data (fields ok, list, chainalysis)
- partly“`payroll_total` proves a run of up to 32 payments adds up to exactly a total, all funded by the prover, without showing who got what.” its READMEits public code at cryptoduke01/gloam was last changed 0 days ago
The claims are their own words, quoted by Claude Haiku 5.5; Claude Sonnet 5.5 checked each result against our evidence and Claude Opus 5.5 had the final say; every check of them is our own read, and chain facts come from the chain.
Working parts we tested
- answeredAPI: its API at gloam.trade/api/screen answered with data (fields ok, list, chainalysis) · gloam.trade/api/screen
- answeredMCP: its MCP server at gloam.trade/mcp answered and listed 8 tools (gloam_info, gloam_networks, gloam_vault_stats, gloam_create_payment_request) · www.gloam.trade/mcp
- no answerx402: gloam.trade/.well-known/x402 did not answer as x402
- answeredPublic code: its public code at cryptoduke01/gloam was last changed 0 days ago · github.com/cryptoduke01/gloam
- factX account @gloamtrade: exists (an account is not working tech; it backs no claim)
- readThe page we read: www.gloam.trade/ (listed on DexScreener)
Holders of 1M $TOLL can re-read this now. Get $TOLL
Claude Opus 5.5 reviewed this read · holders see its notes. Get $TOLL
How we read it
We read what the project says in its own words: its website, its code README and its launch post. Each thing it says it offers is listed as a claim. Then we test it ourselves, and only our own reads count: the contracts it names on chain, who calls them and what they actually do; its app; its own API answering with data; its MCP server listing its tools; its x402 payments; its Chrome Web Store listing; its Telegram bot; its public code changed in the last 30 days. An X account that exists is shown as a fact; it never backs a claim.
- product found a contract of theirs is used by wallets other than the team, or two different working parts of theirs answered our reads.
- product partly found one working part of theirs answered, or weaker support (a contract only the team calls, a page of theirs that opens, fresh code).
- product not found we read their words, and nothing we could check backs them.
- product not read we could not read their words (no site or post, a site that did not open, or one that draws itself with scripts).
Facts, not a verdict: a quiet contract can be tech that launched yesterday, and a busy one can still lose you money. Not advice.