Видео недоступно для предпросмотра
Смотреть в Telegram
Crystal labels certain addresses as affiliated with Garantex (on the sanctions list since 2022) without sufficient grounds.
Due to this erroneous labeling:
- the address acquires a "toxic" status.
- the owners of such wallets face accounts blocks and loss of funds.
I have examined the addresses labeled as "sanctioned" by Crystal.
Here is a list of them:
Fact: "clean address = clean address".
Crystal: "clean address = dirty address".
These inconsistencies occur because Crystal, along with their distributor AMLBot, use heuristic algorithms to identify and label wallets. As a result, the risk score of all addresses that have ever interacted with the above addresses increases, creating a chain reaction for many other addresses.
And now look at this - TQ1893St9QCY3kKuhZi4pRcXwn6wfUEPRM continues to actively interact with Binance, freely sending and receiving crypto - so is Crystal's data reliable?
I decided to verify the addresses using Chainalysis:
All of the above addresses are clean according to Chainalysis data. This can only indicate significant discrepancies in the methodology and practice used by Crystal's analytics tools, which in turn calls into question the validity of their conclusions and the objectivity of their assessments.
«flip-flop»:
Crystal periodically changes their labeling and classification results for addresses.
For instance, TRpDzYzDrrYPm4Q1vNBU8XVZxqywVRFFfD and TABJBUsPYiKhGh4mV9HJ3ucrvb6QwXpXBo were reclassified from Garantex to other entities - Crystal confirms the unreliability of their previous conclusions.
Incorrect asset-tracing:
Crystal applies a tracing method where the risk assessment of transactions is based not on the analysis of specific assets but on the information of the counterparty's wallet, leading to unjustified inclusion of wallets in high-risk categories.
So is it legal to use Crystal's data in compliance procedures?
Due to this erroneous labeling:
- the address acquires a "toxic" status.
- the owners of such wallets face accounts blocks and loss of funds.
I have examined the addresses labeled as "sanctioned" by Crystal.
Here is a list of them:
TAeCrsR72ddqMeK36fpEuYs95fA2yfyrZY
TT7Z5ArWR4gj529xuyuJVKALQmgz9thipS
TK6TsZG3MeCuF9E3em6YUiHSyR1u63qMSg
TMMFhKb5x5nCNsH3RwbybG3iAAi88RqEW2
TQ1893St9QCY3kKuhZi4pRcXwn6wfUEPRM
TGYQYSE3F9bZuZiyBrYompgnGd4YZaqPwF
TQLwer9H3XbWBEtwuN74d3HU678qb5p5Xx
TNTWf81sNBJ3DFgjehw9L1o8qnP8M45JXR
TVTREz6W7mEFVM6DLyfibSquh67NbCn1pq
TAF4VCN3dWp9u3mHjDb5F41DtFjCqPPCwH
TML1dGHoqqybyxpF3ezNyi6Ups86E6Wt7q
TQUba8ue3iFm2SZyah8MMUAyYD5jerJ2Nb
TQkaTDR9nzT3Dwct2ntfzxKJKCpkmG2UF1
TAE6oEjM7dAzQik3zGRvAkSJTQNmwBrGZb
TDG5vLdAEFUjdPnmDP3imcGYVteyaxgvRp
THUCv6VATnahtbBBvHuisBDyrksXpaT3fn
TRpDzYzDrrYPm4Q1vNBU8XVZxqywVRFFfD
TABJBUsPYiKhGh4mV9HJ3ucrvb6QwXpXBo
Fact: "clean address = clean address".
Crystal: "clean address = dirty address".
These inconsistencies occur because Crystal, along with their distributor AMLBot, use heuristic algorithms to identify and label wallets. As a result, the risk score of all addresses that have ever interacted with the above addresses increases, creating a chain reaction for many other addresses.
And now look at this - TQ1893St9QCY3kKuhZi4pRcXwn6wfUEPRM continues to actively interact with Binance, freely sending and receiving crypto - so is Crystal's data reliable?
I decided to verify the addresses using Chainalysis:
All of the above addresses are clean according to Chainalysis data. This can only indicate significant discrepancies in the methodology and practice used by Crystal's analytics tools, which in turn calls into question the validity of their conclusions and the objectivity of their assessments.
«flip-flop»:
Crystal periodically changes their labeling and classification results for addresses.
For instance, TRpDzYzDrrYPm4Q1vNBU8XVZxqywVRFFfD and TABJBUsPYiKhGh4mV9HJ3ucrvb6QwXpXBo were reclassified from Garantex to other entities - Crystal confirms the unreliability of their previous conclusions.
Incorrect asset-tracing:
Crystal applies a tracing method where the risk assessment of transactions is based not on the analysis of specific assets but on the information of the counterparty's wallet, leading to unjustified inclusion of wallets in high-risk categories.
So is it legal to use Crystal's data in compliance procedures?