Documentation
Response Status Codes
200 Successful Request
Description: The request was successful.
400 Bad Request
Description: This indicates the request was unacceptable. This may refer to a missing or improperly formatted parameter.
403 Forbidden
Description: This typically indicates the API key is invalid. This may be because your API Key is rate limited, expired, or not formatted correctly (as a value for the token HTTP header). This could also indicate that you have either formatted your path or path parameters incorrectly.
404 Not Found
Description: This may be because you either requested a nonexistent endpoint or malformed the endpoint syntax.
406 Not Acceptable
Description: This may be because you requested a response format that the API cannot produce. We currently only support JSON output.
500 Internal Server Error
Description: (Rare.) This indicates an error with the server.
503 Service Unavailable Error
Description: (Rare.) This indicates the server may be unavailable or not ready to handle the request.
504 Request Timeout
Description: (Rare.) This indicates that our API gateway did not get a response from our application servers within the expected time.
Definition of Restricted Entities
Restricted entities are those that have been prohibited from engaging in certain business or financial activities due to legal or regulatory measures. These entities are subject to restrictions that prevent individuals or organizations from conducting transactions or dealings with them. Such measures are generally imposed to enforce compliance with specific national or international policies.
Risk Scale
We have implemented the Januus Risk Assessment methodology, which provides a carefully calculated risk score. This score is not a probability, but rather a grade with defined ranges of meaning. It falls between 0 and 100, where 0 represents an extremely low risk and 100 indicates an extremely high risk. A score of 30 is considered neutral, while a score of 60 or above indicates a failing level of risk.
Brief Summary:
Score > 25: Good
Score 30: Neutral
Score > 40: A troublingly high score
Score >= 60: A failing score
Detailed Breakdown:
Score 0
Description: Impossibly low risk (zero)
Score <10
Description: Very few entities will have a score this outstanding, almost risk-free based on seen datapoints.
Score 10-20
Description: An extremely good score.
Score 20-25
Description: A good score. In this range, the improved score is still very meaningful.
Score 25-27
Description: Starting to become only slightly better than neutral. Usually in this range, there might not be much data available about an entity other than date verification.
Score 27-33
Description: Neutral.
Score 33-35
Description: Slightly worse than neutral. This is the realm where a risk factor starts to become more than just noise.
Score 35-40
Description: A slightly worrying score. Perhaps this wallet has transacted with bad actors, but at a low enough proportion that a meaningful link cannot be established.
Score 40-50
Description: A bad score.
Score 50-60
Description: A very bad score. Because it becomes exponentially more difficult to reach 60 without a reason for certain failure, this range probably signifies the presence of several unrelated risk factors. Especially as the score inches toward and past 57ish, then it becomes nearly as meaningful as a failing score in the low 60’s.
Score 60
Description: A failing score; do not have dealings with this entity. This is the exact point where risk becomes so extreme that an irredeemably failing score is given. Only a hand-full of concrete reasons in our rule system will allow the score to hit this threshold. Once at 60, no number of safe datapoints can ever push the score below this mark. It’s guaranteed.
Score 70-80
Description: This score signifies an entity that one should divert considerable resources to avoid. Although, it’s possible that it was even higher, but some datapoints (or ‘reasons’) had a negative offset, pushing it closer toward 60.
Score >80
Description: A supremely high risk. In this range, usually the wallet has been directly and credibly marked as malicious or has an overwhelming number of direct neighbors of whom this is true.
Score 100
Description: Extremely high risk score.
Additionally, all reports submitted by law enforcement, investigators, verified crypto scam victims, and financial institutions are automatically assigned a risk score of 100, indicating the highest level of risk. The ‘Explanation of Scam’ notes are submitted by the reporting party without any alterations or edits from our team.
Methodology for Crypto Wallet Risk Analysis
1. Data Collection & Sources
The first step in our risk assessment methodology is the collection of data from trusted and verified sources. Our service aggregates data from the following sources:
- Law Enforcement Agencies: We use data from governmental agencies to identify wallets involved in illicit or suspicious activities.
- Financial Institutions: Collaborations with banks and financial entities help us assess the legitimacy of transactions and wallet activity.
- Crypto Investigators: We leverage data from investigative bodies and research analysts who track trends in cryptocurrency fraud.
- Regulatory Data: Data from global regulatory bodies, such as financial watchdogs and compliance organizations, ensures that our assessments are aligned with international standards.
- Verified Scam Victims: We integrate information from victims of verified crypto scams, helping us identify wallets associated with fraudulent activity.
2. Risk Scoring System
We use a comprehensive risk scoring system that evaluates a wallet based on several risk factors. This score is presented on a scale from 0 to 100, indicating the potential threat level of a wallet address.
Risk Factors Evaluated: Our algorithm evaluates the following factors:
- Wallet Connections: Wallets linked to known scam addresses or flagged wallets.
- Regulatory Flags: Alerts or sanctions associated with the wallet or its related entities.
Scoring Breakdown: Based on the analysis, the wallet is assigned a risk score that falls within one of the following zones:
- Safe Zone (0-25): No significant risk identified.
- Neutral Zone (25-35): Minor risks or neutral activity, indicating no immediate concerns.
- Warning Zone (35-60): Potential risks present, requiring further investigation.
- Danger Zone (60-100): Severe risks or malicious activities associated with the wallet.
3. Real-Time Risk Analysis
Our system performs a real-time analysis of the wallet address input by the user. When a wallet address is entered, our methodology ensures that:
- Instant Assessment: We use high-speed data retrieval processes to fetch and analyze the wallet’s history and associated activities.
- Up-to-Date Data: Our system ensures continuous data updates, pulling in the latest information from our sources to provide the most accurate analysis.
- Clear Risk Indicators: The results are instantly presented to the user with clear and actionable risk indicators, displayed with visual aids such as a risk score and key red flags.
4. Continuous Monitoring & Updates
Our methodology ensures that data is continuously updated to reflect the most recent developments in the crypto space. This includes:
- Real-Time Monitoring: Constantly updating risk data based on new fraud reports, regulatory changes, and emerging scam trends.
- System Adjustments: The scoring algorithm is periodically reviewed and fine-tuned to incorporate new risk factors, technologies, and regulatory requirements.
5. User Alerts
Users are instantly alerted when a wallet they entered has been reported as suspicious. If new risks are identified, or if the wallet address is flagged by any of our data sources, an alert is triggered to notify the user immediately.
6. Legal & Ethical Compliance
We adhere to all relevant legal and ethical guidelines in the cryptocurrency space:
- Data Privacy: Our methodology ensures that users’ privacy is maintained, and no personal data is required to perform wallet analysis.
- Regulatory Compliance: Our system is aligned with international laws and standards to avoid any legal pitfalls associated with cryptocurrency risk analysis.
- Collaboration with Authorities: We cooperate with law enforcement and other regulatory bodies when necessary to ensure compliance with industry standards and assist in investigations of fraudulent activities.
Validation Method
Ensuring the accuracy and reliability of reports is crucial to maintaining a trustworthy platform. To this end, a comprehensive Spam Detection System has been implemented to effectively filter out false or duplicate submissions, ensuring that only valid and actionable information is processed.
Confidence Scoring:
Several factors are taken into account, including the frequency of submissions, patterns in reporting activity, and the historical trustworthiness of the submitting source.
- Fraudulent Wallets: These are assigned the highest risk score of 100.
- Sanctioned Wallets: These are assessed based on detailed data analysis, allowing for an accurate risk score that reflects their credibility.
In addition to confidence scoring, the system prevents duplicate address submissions, ensuring that each flagged address is unique. This feature is integral to preserving the integrity of the reported data and helps maintain a streamlined, effective reporting process for users flagging fraudulent or suspicious activities.
If you have any questions, please contact us.