Monero: The Crypto that forgets

Monero: The Crypto That Forgets

This time: Monero, the most hunted coin alive.

Reach into your pocket and pull out a banknote. Any note. Look at it for a second.

It doesn’t know your name. It doesn’t remember the last hand it was in, or what they bought, or whether they were a saint or a crook. It carries no history and it asks no permission. You can hand it to anyone alive and no one, anywhere, gets a record. We’ve had money like this for thousands of years, and we barely notice how quietly radical it is.

Now here’s the thing almost nobody has clocked. The money were building to replace that note has a perfect memory. And there’s exactly one coin that looked at that and said, no. Money should forget. Its called Monero, ticker XMR, and it is the most hunted, most misunderstood, and quietly most principled project in all of crypto.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

This is issue three of The Teardown, where we take one coin at a time and open it up like the back of a watch, to understand the machine, not the price. A couple of issues ago we cracked open Zcash, the coin that lets you switch privacy on. Today’s coin is the answer to Zcash’s biggest weakness, and it gets there by doing the one thing Zcash never dared: taking the switch away.

Ill go slow, like always. Not investment advice, and honestly this might be the hardest coin in the whole series to even buy, and the one most likely to earn you a funny look. I just went down the rabbit hole of how it works and why it exists, and it left me thinking harder about what money even is than anything else in crypto. Let me show you.

What a banknote quietly does

Stay with that note in your hand, because its hiding the whole point.

A banknote works precisely because it has amnesia. It doesn’t remember where its been, which means every note is equal to every other note of the same value. A ten from a church collection spends exactly like a ten from a card table. Nobody inspects its past. Nobody can refuse it because of where it slept last night.

Economists have a clumsy word for that equality: fungibility. It just means one unit is perfectly interchangeable with any other. Boring word, enormous idea. Its the thing that quietly lets money be money at all.

The money we are building never forgets

Now look at what we are building to replace cash. On a normal blockchain like Bitcoin, every coin carries its entire life story, permanently, in public. Every payment it was ever part of is written on a shared wall that anyone on Earth can read, forever. (If thats new to you, how blockchain actually works lays the floor for all of this.)

Press enter or click to view image in full size

That sounds harmless, even virtuous. Transparency. Honesty. But follow it one step. If every coin remembers everywhere its been, then coins stop being equal. A coin that once passed through a hack, or a sanctioned wallet, or a gambling site, picks up a reputation. Exchanges flag it. Services refuse it. It can be frozen, or quietly treated as worth less than a clean coin of the very same value.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Sit with how strange that is. Two identical coins, the same number stamped on each, and one is worth less, or gets you investigated, purely because of a stranger who held it three owners ago. That is money losing the one magic property cash always had. It is money that can be punished for its past. And once money can be judged, it can be steered.

Enter the coin that forgets

Monero, born in 2014, exists to rebuild the amnesia of cash for the internet. Its goal, stated plainly, is to be digital money that is private, and therefore equal, by default. Not private if you flip a setting. Private always, for everyone, no exceptions.

And that single design choice, mandatory privacy, is the key to the whole coin. Its also where it breaks hard from Zcash.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Remember Zcash’s honest weakness. Privacy there was optional, a shielded mode you chose to turn on, and because most people never bothered, the crowd you hid inside was thin, which made the hiding weaker. Monero looked at that exact problem, years earlier, and made the opposite, radical call. It removed the off switch entirely. On Monero there is no transparent option. Everyone is private, whether they care or not.

You cant be anonymous alone

Here’s why that matters far more than it first sounds, and its genuinely beautiful.

Privacy, it turns out, is not something you can really have by yourself. Picture a public square where every face is bare, and you alone put on a mask. You havent hidden. Youve done the opposite. Youve made yourself the single thing everyone notices. A crowd with one masked person in it hides nobody.

But if everyone in the square is masked, suddenly no single person can be picked out, and your mask is now protecting the stranger beside you as much as it protects you. Privacy becomes a herd. A thing you can only truly have together.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

That is Monero’s whole philosophy in one picture. By pulling everyone into the crowd, it keeps the crowd permanently full, and everyone’s privacy holds up everyone else’s. You cant be anonymous alone. So on Monero, no one is asked to be.

One honest word before we go under the hood

Quick pause, friend to friend. What’s coming next is the actual machinery, three clever pieces of cryptography, and its the good stuff. If a part needs a second read, that’s not you failing, that’s you learning something most people who own this coin have never bothered to understand. Ill build it slowly. I’m not here to keep you nodding along at the same lines everyone repeats. I want you to walk away actually knowing this. Onward.

How it hides three things at once

To make a payment truly private, you have to hide three separate facts, and Monero uses a different tool for each. This is the part I love, because none of the three is redundant. Each one plugs a hole the other two leave open.

Fact one, who sent it. Monero hides the sender with something called a ring signature. When you spend your coins, your real coin is mixed into a lineup with a batch of decoys, other real coins pulled from the blockchain’s own history. The signature that authorises the payment proves that one coin in the lineup is genuinely yours and is being spent honestly, yet it gives away no clue which one. An observer sees, say, sixteen possible senders, and cannot tell the real one from the decoys.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fact two, who received it. Monero hides the receiver with a stealth address. Even if you hand out a single public address, every payment sent to you is quietly redirected to a brand-new, one-time address that only you can detect and unlock. So your real address never appears on the chain, and no two payments to you can ever be linked together. A fresh disposable mailbox for every single payment, and only you hold the keys.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fact three, how much. Monero hides the amount with a piece called RingCT. The number is sealed inside cryptographic commitments, so no observer can read it, and yet the network can still do the one check that matters, confirming that the money going in equals the money coming out, so nothing is ever conjured from nothing.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Put those three together, sender hidden, receiver hidden, amount hidden, then add a fourth layer that scrambles which computer first announced the payment so your internet address doesn’t betray you, and you get a transaction that leaks almost nothing. Four locks, each shutting a different kind of spy out.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

There is a lovely detail I have to mention, because we met it last time. A hidden-coin system has the same puzzle Zcash had. If nobody can see which coin you’re spending, how does the network stop you spending it twice? Monero solves it almost identically. Each coin, when spent, produces a unique unforgeable marker, a key image, that reveals nothing about the coin but comes out identical if you ever try to spend that coin again. Spend twice, the same marker appears, and the network rejects it. Same elegant trick, different coin.

The upgrade that turns sixteen into everyone

Now, that lineup of decoys has a limit. For years the ring held only about sixteen possible senders. Better than nothing, but a determined analyst with enough data could sometimes make educated guesses about which was the real one.

So Monero is rolling out the biggest cryptographic upgrade in its history, with a name only a mathematician could love, full-chain membership proofs. In plain terms, instead of hiding your coin among sixteen decoys, it hides it among every coin that has ever existed on the entire blockchain. Tens of millions of them. The whole haystack.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The community calls it going from a padlock to a vault door, and its powered by the same family of proof-magic we saw inside Zcash. When it fully lands, guessing which coin was really spent goes from merely hard to effectively hopeless.

The most honest money in the room

Theres one more thing about Monero almost nobody talks about, and it genuinely moved me.

There was no pre-mine, where founders quietly keep a fat slice for themselves before anyone else can join. No ICO, no big sale to insiders. No company sitting on a treasury of coins. No venture investors with tokens waiting to unlock and land on your head. Every single Monero in existence was mined, coin by coin, in the open, by people running the software. What you see is the entire supply, with nothing hidden behind it. In a space absolutely riddled with insider allocations and quiet enrichment, that is stunningly rare.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

It even mines in a deliberately egalitarian way, using an algorithm tuned so that ordinary computer processors stay competitive, to keep mining in the hands of many small players instead of a few industrial giants.

There is one genuine catch here, and I wont skip it. Unlike Bitcoin’s famous hard cap of twenty-one million coins, Monero never stops issuing entirely. A small, fixed reward keeps being minted forever, a gentle trickle of new coins, mild inflation that fades over time but never fully dies. To the hard-money crowd, that’s close to heresy. Monero’s builders made the choice on purpose, arguing that a network has to keep paying its miners to stay secure, and that relying on transaction fees alone one day, as Bitcoin plans to, is a dangerous bet. You can disagree with the choice. But its a considered, honest one, not an accident.

The most hunted coin alive

Now the hard part, and it is very hard.

Actually delivering money that forgets has made Monero the most aggressively hunted asset in all of crypto. Because the same amnesia that protects an ordinary person also protects a criminal, Monero is the coin governments least want to exist.

The result has been a slow siege. Through 2024 and 2025, dozens upon dozens of exchanges, including some of the biggest names, removed Monero, many of them under pressure from new rules in Europe and outright bans in countries like Japan and South Korea. Europe is preparing rules that would push privacy coins off regulated platforms almost entirely by 2027. Years ago, a tax authority literally posted a bounty, real money, for anyone who could reliably crack Monero’s privacy. By and large, that bounty went unclaimed.

And heres the twist that tells you something deep. It didnt die. Kicked off the big exchanges, Monero’s community simply built its own doors, peer-to-peer marketplaces and atomic swaps that let people trade directly, wallet to wallet, with no company in the middle to lean on or shut down. Push hard on genuinely decentralized money and, maddeningly for regulators, it tends to just route around the pressure and come out more resilient. Being un-listable turned out to be a strange kind of strength.

The honest scratches

You deserve the whole picture, so, plainly, the rest of the downsides.

The reputation is real. Monero genuinely is a preferred coin for a lot of illicit activity, precisely because it works, and that stigma is not going away. Unlike Zcash, it offers no easy built-in way to selectively reveal your history to, say, an auditor or a tax office. Its closer to all-or-nothing, which makes it genuinely harder to square with regulation, though you can, if you choose, hand someone a key to view specific payments. Its privacy is strong but not magic. Researchers have probed weaknesses over the years, and the network has had scares, including moments where a single mining group grew uncomfortably large. And being delisted almost everywhere is not only a badge of honour, its a real practical problem, because thin liquidity and hard access genuinely hurt ordinary holders.

None of that makes Monero a scam. And none of it makes it a sure thing. It makes it exactly what it is, the most serious attempt anyone has made to rebuild cash for the internet, carrying both the freedom and the danger that cash has always carried.

The one idea to keep

Forget the words ring signature and stealth address by next week if you like. Keep this instead, because it will quietly change how you look at every kind of money for the rest of your life.

Ask of any money, does it remember?

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Three questions. Can two units of it be told apart by where they’ve been? Can one unit be frozen, taxed differently, or refused because of its past, while an identical unit is fine? And does spending it leave a permanent record that could one day be used against you? The more yeses, the more that money can be sorted, judged, and controlled. Cash forgets, and that forgetting is a freedom we never even had to think about. Monero is the attempt to keep that freedom alive as money turns digital. Once you start seeing money this way, you cant unsee it.

Where this comes home

So, three issues into cracking these things open, a map is forming, and its worth pinning to the wall.

Bitcoin fought to be money that cant be censored. Zcash fought to be money that cant be watched. Stellar chose to be money that can be frozen and cleared, so that institutions would actually use it. And Monero fights to be money that cant be told apart, money with no memory, where every coin is equal. Four coins, four completely different answers to a question almost nobody stops to ask: what should money be?

And that lands us right back on the thread this whole newsletter keeps pulling. Ive argued for a long time that the world is drifting, slowly and unstoppably, toward shared digital money-rails, which we walked through in what settlement layer really means and the convergence. That future is coming. But if all of it runs on money that remembers everything, we will have built something genuinely new under the sun. Money as a permanent, searchable record of every human life, readable by whoever holds power, and usable to reward, punish, freeze, and steer. As tax systems already scan transparent chains in milliseconds, that world is not a fantasy. Its a roadmap.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Monero is the stubborn argument that the coming on-chain world needs at least one money that forgets. Not so criminals can hide, that is the cost of the thing, not its purpose, but so that money cannot quietly become a leash. Because almost everyone, if they’re honest, has something in their spending they’d simply rather the whole world not see. Not because its a crime. Because its theirs.

Whether XMR the coin thrives or gets regulated into a corner, I don’t know, and I’m not here to tell you. But the question it is fighting over, whether money in the digital age gets to forget, may be one of the most important questions of the century. And now, at least, you can see that the question is even being asked.

Money that remembers can be controlled. Money that forgets stays free. Monero picked a side. Now you know why.

Is Bitcoin stupid? Do the Math like I did…

I Spent 10 Years Calling Bitcoin Stupid. Then I Actually Did the Math

My uncle bought Bitcoin in 2013 for something like $120 a coin. He sold it two years later at what he still calls a “huge profit” $340.

He tells this story at literally every family dinner, usually somewhere between the turkey and the pie, and for a decade I just nodded and privately filed the whole thing under “stuff my uncle is wrong about.”

I thought Bitcoin was a casino. Internet Monopoly money for people who watch too many YouTube thumbnails with red arrows pointing up.

Then last spring, mostly because I was procrastinating on an actual work deadline, I read the original whitepaper instead of just having opinions about it secondhand like a normal person. Nine pages. Twenty minutes, tops. And I finished it kind of annoyed not because it was convincing, but because it didn’t match either version I’d been fed. Not the “future of money, get rich or die trying” version the Twitter bros sell. Not the “obvious scam, it’s tulip mania” version my more cynical friends keep repeating at me like it’s a mic drop.

It’s weirder than both. And honestly more boring than either camp wants it to be, which weirdly is what made me trust it a little more.

So here’s the stuff nobody bothered explaining to me properly, in the order I wish I’d learned it.

Image Generated by Chatgpt

Nobody Built This to Make You Rich

This part gets skipped constantly. Bitcoin showed up in October 2008, right as banks were falling over and people were watching their homes get repossessed, written by someone (or a small group, nobody actually knows) hiding behind the name Satoshi Nakamoto. No founder photo. No LinkedIn. No TED Talk. Nothing.

The original pitch wasn’t “invest in this.” It read more like a complaint with code stapled to it: money nobody’s central bank could quietly water down, that no single institution could freeze because it didn’t like what you did with it.

There are exactly 21 million of them. Ever. Not “21 million for now, subject to review.” Not “21 million unless the board votes otherwise next quarter.” That number is the whole argument, honestly — every debate you’ve seen about Bitcoin online eventually traces back to that one stubborn rule.

Compare that to the twenty dollar bill in your wallet right now. The Fed can, and regularly does, create more of those whenever they think the economy needs a nudge. That’s not some shadowy conspiracy — it’s their actual job description. Bitcoin exists as a kind of built-in argument against that whole idea.

The “Bitcoin Is Dead” Headline Is Basically a Genre Now

There’s an actual running tally online of how many times big outlets have declared Bitcoin dead — last time I looked it had crossed 470 since 2010. Forbes has done it. The Guardian’s done it. A hundred finance blogs you’ve never heard of have done it, some of them multiple times, apparently without checking their own archives.

I used to think that was funny in a “look at these delusional crypto people” way. Now I think it says a lot more about the obituary writers than it does about Bitcoin.

Here’s the bit that scepticism, for most of my adult life , tends to skip: Bitcoin isn’t a company you can sue, and there’s no CEO to fire, because neither exists. It runs on tens of thousands of computers sitting in basements, garages, and data centres, spread across pretty much every country you could name. Actually killing it would mean shutting down the internet everywhere, all at once, permanently. Go ahead and try scheduling that meeting.

Okay, Fine, the Price Swings Are Genuinely Annoying

I’ll give the sceptics this one, because it’s true watching something drop 30% in a week feels bad, no matter how many charts you’ve studied. My stomach still drops a little when I check the price after not looking for a month.

But almost nobody mentions the scale problem, and it matters. Bitcoin’s whole market is still small next to something like gold or the S&P 500. When a market’s that size, it doesn’t take a huge amount of money moving in or out to send the price flying in either direction. Picture a canoe versus a container ship in choppy water the canoe isn’t broken; it’s just smaller, so every wave hits it harder.

Has it calmed down any as bigger players pension funds, a handful of companies, even a couple of governments started holding some? A little. Slowly. I’m not going to pretend it’s suddenly boring and stable, because it isn’t.

This Is the Bit That Actually Changed My Mind

Okay, real talk this is where my thinking actually shifted, and it’s the part almost nobody leads with. Bitcoin isn’t really a tech story. It’s a trust story wearing a tech costume.

Most of us have built our entire financial lives around trusting institutions banks, central banks, whoever happens to be in charge to not mess with our money too badly. And to be fair, for a lot of people in a lot of places, that trust has mostly held up fine. But go ask someone who lived through Venezuela’s currency collapse, or Lebanon’s, or Argentina’s several rounds of it, how well that trust panned out. Their savings just evaporated. Not because they gambled it away because someone else controlled the printing press and used it a little too enthusiastically.

Strip away the hype and Bitcoin’s actual pitch is: you don’t have to trust anyone else with this. For someone living through hyperinflation, that’s not a fun side investment. That’s closer to a life raft.

For those of us lucky enough to live somewhere with a relatively stable currency, it’s a much smaller deal more like an insurance policy you’re hoping to never actually need.

So, Should You Actually Buy Some?

Not answering that one for you, sorry. Anybody online who answers that question with total confidence is usually about to sell you a course, and I’d rather not be that person.

What I will say: know what you’re actually buying before you buy it. This isn’t a stock. No dividends land in your account, no earnings calls, no company behind it shipping a product you can judge on its merits. It’s scarce digital money that a growing pile of strangers around the world have collectively decided is worth something — which, if you sit with that for a second, is basically how gold works too. Or paper money, come to think of it. Value has always just been a shared agreement people keep showing up to honour.

If you do dip a toe in, do the boring, responsible version — money you’re genuinely fine not touching for years, a small slice next to everything else you already own, and not because some stranger on the internet told you to (hi, again).

Where I Ended Up

My uncle still insists he made a great call back in 2013. Honestly, even with the sale that looks kind of silly in hindsight now, I’m not totally sure he’s wrong. Bitcoin isn’t magic, and it isn’t a scam. It’s a genuinely strange kind of asset that keeps dragging an old question back into the room — who do you actually trust with your money, people, or code that couldn’t care less about your feelings?

I don’t have a tidy answer for that. I just stopped pretending the question was dumb.

And when you arrive at your conclusion, you will note it is not only bitcoin but a myriad of other tokens in the crypto realm. A few are outstanding, which offer something bitcoin doesn’t: privacy, even anonymity! Look up Z-Cash (ZEC), privacy is optional, or Monero (XMR), privacy is built-in and enforced! To trade Monero without KYC, on DEX, p2p you need to use a tool called   dawnswap.com, it offers all this at lowest entry levels and very decent costs, payment options are other cyrptos (swap them for xmr) or even mailed-in fiat like USD or EUR

10 Questions to Ask Your Blockchain Analytics Provider about Data Quality

Blockchain analytics tools provide critical intelligence to compliance teams, regulators, and investigators. These professionals use that intelligence to uncover illicit activity, prioritize investigations, support enforcement actions, and ultimately hold bad actors accountable. But those outcomes depend on one thing: the quality of the underlying blockchain data.

If the data is wrong, investigators will waste time and resources chasing a false lead, and compliance analysts could miss sanctions exposure. The downstream effects can be even worse: a single incorrect attribution can discredit hundreds of related insights, undermine entire investigations and lead to wrongful customer terminations.

Selecting the right blockchain analytics provider is therefore a mission-critical decision. Evaluating the quality of the underlying data requires more than comparing feature lists or coverage claims. Any provider performing rigorous analytical work should be able to explain the methodology behind its conclusions, the evidence supporting them, the safeguards used to prioritize accuracy, and show that the claims hold up under scrutiny and independent testing. The following questions are designed to assess the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary standards behind a provider’s methodology as part of your due diligence.

How addresses get grouped

  1. How do you determine that multiple addresses belong to the same entity? 

Some methodologies establish common ownership deterministically. Others infer ownership  probabilistically. Both approaches can be useful, but it is important to understand which method is being used and when.

  1. What happens when your grouping methods get it wrong? 

Every technique has blind spots. For example, CoinJoin transactions need to be identified and excluded from UTXO co-spending heuristics. A good provider has mapped out these edge cases and built protections against them, and not just assumed errors are rare.

  1. Do you use different techniques for different blockchains? 

Different blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, operate in fundamentally different ways with distinct architectures, transaction models, and behavioral patterns. As a result, the techniques used to group addresses together should differ as well. If a provider uses the same general terminology across blockchains, ask what methodology is being applied.

How entities get labeled

  1. What evidence supports your labels, and how reliable is it? 

A label confirmed by a reliable source — for example a dataset seized by law enforcement — is very different from one based on a single uncorroborated report, e.g an anonymous tip.

  1. If you changed the label, would the address grouping still hold up? 

The grouping and the label should be independent. If removing a label causes the grouping to fall apart, neither claim stands on its own.

  1. Do you distinguish between who runs a wallet and who uses it? 

When you deposit crypto at an exchange, your deposit address is linked to you, but the exchange controls it. Failing to distinguish between users and service providers can lead to incorrect ownership claims and attribution errors. A provider should be able to explain how it differentiates between who uses an address and who ultimately controls it. The same challenge exists with nested entities, where one company relies on another company’s custodial or wallet infrastructure. Robust attribution requires understanding not just who interacts with an address, but who ultimately controls it.

How methodology gets tested

  1. Has your methodology been challenged in court? 

Legal proceedings test whether the methodology behind clustering and attribution can be submitted as evidence. A methodology that has satisfied the Daubert standard is fundamentally different from one that has never faced it, even if they seem similar on the surface. If a provider’s methods are relied upon in investigations, compliance decisions, or enforcement actions, understanding how those methods have performed under legal scrutiny can provide valuable insight into their rigor, methodology, and reliability.

  1. Have you participated in independent accuracy studies? 

Opportunities to verify the accuracy of blockchain analytics are rare and valuable. But if law enforcement seizes wallet infrastructure, then outside parties can compare empirical evidence with attribution data. These moments provide a unique opportunity to validate whether a provider’s methodologies produce accurate results in the real world. Has your provider welcomed that kind of external testing, or avoided it?

  1. Where do you draw the line with machine learning? 

ML is great for spotting patterns. But if ML outputs automatically get treated as confirmed facts, errors can quickly multiply. Understanding where a provider relies on machine learning can help you distinguish between evidence-based conclusions and probabilistic assessments that may require further validation. Ask how your provider leverages ML and if those outputs are not grouped with other methodologies and are clearly labelled as such.

  1. Can you explain how any given cluster was built? 

For any specific cluster, a provider should be able to walk you through how it was constructed and what evidence supports it. If they can’t trace how a cluster came together, then their cluster might not be right.

Any blockchain analytics company should be able to provide clear and specific answers to these questions. They’re the product of transparency, quality control, and strong evidentiary standards — the same standards your investigations depend on.

To learn more about Chainalysis’s data standards, read Defining the Cluster, our formal ontology for blockchain address analysis and intelligence claims, and why we published it

An Ontology for Accountability: Defining What Data Quality Means in Blockchain Analytics

We built this to be questioned

Before I came to blockchain analytics, I spent years in academia studying the formal correctness of distributed systems. My work was proving, mathematically, that code and protocols behave correctly under every possible execution variant. Not most of them. All of them. In that world, there isn’t a “good enough.” There’s proof, or there’s no proof.

I left academia to apply that thinking to real-world problems, first in financial infrastructure where failure is enormously expensive, and eventually to blockchain analytics, where failure directly impacts peoples’ livelihoods. I’ve now spent nearly a decade as Chainalysis’s Chief Scientist, and I’m ultimately responsible for the quality of our data. That responsibility is something I carry into every decision about how our systems work and the claims they make.

I mention this background because it explains something about how I approach this field, and why the following moment that happened a few years back changed everything.

The moment

A customer came to me with a problem. They had two blockchain analytics tools giving them two very different answers about the same deposit address. Ours called it a gambling service. The other tool called it CSAM.

This was not a disagreement about whether an address belongs to Exchange A or Exchange B. Rather, it was a  disagreement where one answer means a person placed a bet, and the other means they may have purchased child sexual abuse material.

I looked at it and quickly understood what had happened. Small, regular payments of similar size and frequency can look alike if all you’re doing is matching statistical patterns. A small-time gambler and something far darker can produce similar transaction footprints when viewed through a narrow enough lens. That’s a dangerous conclusion, and a reckless foundation to build it on – no evidence, just appearance.

That kind of conclusion cannot easily be independently proven by the people who act on it. People rely on this data and may treat it as fact. We have proven that it can be relied on, if done right. This, however, was exploitation of that trust. And it could have terrible consequences.

Building research-grade systems for a field that didn’t exist

When I joined this space, blockchain analytics wasn’t an established discipline. There were no textbooks, no accreditation bodies, no precedent. The problems were novel. It was research. And we were building systems to be used by people who didn’t fully technically comprehend blockchains, people who relied on the correctness of our work and trusted it. Law enforcement agents building cases. Compliance teams making decisions that affect real people and their access to money. Prosecutors presenting evidence in court.

So I did what came naturally: applied academic rigor to everything we built. If it could withstand peer review, it was good enough. If it couldn’t, discard. We drew hard lines between what could be proven through deterministic, reproducible on-chain analysis, and what required intelligence tradecraft. We enumerated failure modes and safeguarded against them. We treated the structural layer of our analysis as a scientific discipline, because that’s what it is.

When you’ve spent years proving systems correct under all conditions, you don’t ship something and hope it holds up. You build it so you can prove it holds up.

Rigor is a philosophy, not a phase

That standard wasn’t something we outgrew as the company scaled or the blockchain ecosystem evolved. As new chain architectures emerged, as the complexity of on-chain activity grew exponentially, we kept the bar exactly where it was and improved our operational processes.

When our methodology was subjected to full Daubert scrutiny in federal court in United States v. Sterlingov, it was found admissible across every criterion. I never doubted that outcome, because I knew our methods could stand up to peer review.

When independent researchers at Delft University in collaboration with law enforcement conducted the only empirical validation study of attribution accuracy against ground truth from seized infrastructure, we welcomed it. We let the results be published. We treated it as what it was: the kind of external scrutiny that any legitimate discipline should invite. Another provider tried to suppress that same study through legal threats. That tells you something. No. It tells you everything.

As the field grew, new entrants arrived. And with them came a gradual erosion that I’ve watched with growing concern. Definitions got looser. Machine learning outputs started being treated as forensic facts. I started getting questions from customers about data quality issues that shouldn’t exist if the underlying methodology were sound. The CSAM-versus-gambling moment was the most visceral, but it wasn’t the only one, and they haven’t stopped coming.

The vocabulary gap

The field is still young and the technology is genuinely new. But the deeper problem isn’t that the investigators, regulators, and courts who depend on this data don’t fully understand the underlying mechanics. It’s that they shouldn’t have to. You can’t expect everyone investigating crime in this space to appreciate every nuance and technical aspect. That’s what science gives you. Blockchain analytics hasn’t formalized that yet since the space is new. We’re building toward the kind of standards that mature scientific disciplines have established.

That’s why we wrote the ontology. Neither as a product specification nor a marketing document, but formal paper that outlines the standards we have upheld since our founding that breaks down the work we do into its constituent parts, assigns each an evidentiary standard, and gives the industry a vocabulary for accountability.

It defines two tiers. The layer that determines whether addresses share common control, must meet a standard of structural soundness: deterministic, reproducible, auditable, with known and documented failure modes. The attribution layer, linking those addresses to a named entity, follows a structured and recognizable confidence framework: source characterization with documented reasoning requirements. Both are rigorous. But they’re different kinds of rigor, and conflating them is how you confuse people, and failing to appreciate them is how you end up labeling a gambler as a CSAM purchaser.

Why this makes me proud

This paper formalizes the principles that have guided our methodology since our founding, while acknowledging that our implementation continues to evolve. It required us to name what we’ve been doing all along. The standards it defines are the standards we already hold ourselves to. The bright lines it draws are bright lines we drew years ago, because nothing less would withstand peer review.

The consumers of blockchain analytics data don’t always have the information to perform their own peer review. What makes me proud is working for a company that does not violate the trust those people place in us. Every system we designed, every heuristic we deployed, every analytical claim we made was built with the assumption that it would one day be examined by someone adversarial, skeptical, and technically capable, and that it needed to hold up. And it has held up. Because we built it that way.

But pride in our own work isn’t enough. The people affected by blockchain analytics outputs, the subjects of investigations, the users flagged by compliance systems, the defendants in criminal cases, deserve an industry that holds itself to this standard collectively. This paper is a first step, not a final word. We’re publishing our definitions because someone needs to take the lead in responsible transparency. Someone has to establish the boundaries. We believe we have. Now we’re inviting the industry to build on them with us.

Inside a Sandwich Attack: Lessons From the $7.5 Million Heist Against JaredfromSubway.eth

Summary

  • JaredfromSubway.eth, the most prolific sandwich-attack bot on Ethereum, was drained of at least $7.5 million in a reverse honeypot exploit on June 20–21, 2026.
  • An unknown attacker deployed 66 fake token contracts to trick the bot into granting token-spending approvals, then swept its real assets in a single coordinated transaction.
  • The stolen funds — ETH and stablecoins — were converted to ETH and sent to Tornado Cash. No funds have been recovered.
  • The exploit underscores the importance of revoking unused approvals and vetting smart contracts before interacting with them on-chain.

 

Ethereum’s most notorious sandwich attacker just got compromised. Over the weekend, JaredfromSubway.eth — who spent years squeezing other traders for profit — lost at least $7.5 million in crypto to a trap disguised as a lucrative trade.

How sandwich attacks work

The attack struck in Ethereum’s mempool: the waiting room where on-chain trades go before they finalize. Integral to the way Ethereum works, its mempool is viewable by anyone – even rival traders. Savvy operators like JaredfromSubway.eth have long forged an edge with mempool intelligence. They front-run victims’ yet-to-finalize orders, pushing up the price for the user. Then, they back-run them too, creating an arbitrage sandwich.

Ethereum’s most prolific sandwich bot

This highly profitable trading strategy is controversial and unseemly, but also widespread. JaredfromSubway.eth has made tens of millions of dollars sandwiching other traders since 2023. His bot hunts for opportunities to extract value across DeFi, monitoring token pools for imbalances and inefficiencies, and, when it finds one, making a sandwich to capture some cash.

How the $7.5 million honeypot exploit worked

That’s what happened over the weekend. Jared’s bot spotted a series of pools that it could exploit. So it went through the normal motions – including granting spending approvals – needed for executing automated transactions quickly enough for the mempool.

But the smart contracts to which his bot granted spending approvals were actually honeypots. Their token trading pairs were illegitimate stooge assets; there wasn’t a real profit for Jared to extract. His bot didn’t register this. Over multiple transactions, it kept granting approvals to these malicious contracts — permissions that were never revoked. Once enough had accumulated, a tripwire smart contract activated and drained JaredfromSubway.eth of at least $7.5 million.

Following the money: laundering through Tornado Cash

Stolen assets included ETH and millions of dollars in stablecoins. Keeping the assets in stablecoins presented a risk to the attacker; the stablecoins’ issuers could choose to freeze the funds. That may be why within minutes of acquiring the stablecoins, the attacker swapped them into ETH as well – shielding the stolen assets from an easy freeze.

Using Reactor, we can see that over the following days, the attacker split their ill-gotten gains across other wallets. This kicked off a chain of transfers leading into Tornado Cash, a tool that obfuscates the flow of funds.

Why this matters for every DeFi user

The mechanics of this exploit offer a lesson for anyone transacting on-chain.

Unrevoked token approvals are standing invitations

The attack worked because Jared’s bot granted token-spending approvals to smart contracts it never bothered to vet. Every day, ordinary DeFi users do the same thing. They approve contracts to spend their tokens – often granting unlimited permissions to code they’ve never read. Those approvals don’t expire. Each is a standing invitation for someone else to move your money. Jared’s bot had dozens of them pointing at malicious contracts, and it never noticed. Most wallets are no different.

The counterparty problem with unverified contracts

Then there’s the counterparty problem. In traditional finance, you know who’s on the other side of a trade. On-chain, the counterparty is the smart contract itself – and if that contract is unverified, you’re essentially signing a deal you can’t read. Jared’s bot interacted with 66 fake contracts that mimicked legitimate tokens. A manual review of the code – or even a basic check of deployment history – might have flagged them. But the bot was optimized for speed. It skipped due diligence, and lost $7.5 million for it.

How to protect yourself from honeypots

Revoke approvals you no longer need. Vet the contracts you interact with – check whether they’re verified on Etherscan, look at who deployed them. Be skeptical of new pools with no track record. Otherwise, you risk getting rolled.

FAQs

What is a sandwich attack?

A sandwich attack is a predatory trading strategy where a bot monitors Ethereum’s mempool – the public waiting room for pending transactions – and spots a trade it can exploit. The bot front-runs the victim’s order with its own buy, pushing the price up, then lets the victim’s trade execute at the inflated price. Immediately after, the bot sells for a profit. The victim gets a worse deal; the bot pockets the difference. It’s called a sandwich because the victim’s trade is squeezed between the bot’s two orders – the bread on either side.

Who is JaredfromSubway.eth?

JaredfromSubway.eth is the pseudonymous operator of Ethereum’s most prolific sandwich bot, active since 2023. At its peak, the bot’s prolific sandwich activity cost traders an estimated $60 million a year. It was frequently the single largest gas consumer on the entire network.

How did the attack unfold?

An unknown attacker deployed 66 fake token contracts that mimicked legitimate assets like WETH, USDC, and USDT, and paired them with fraudulent liquidity pools. To Jared’s bot, these looked like easy sandwich targets. As the bot moved to exploit them, it granted token-spending approvals to the attacker’s contracts. But those approvals were never consumed or revoked. They stayed open, giving the attacker a means to move the bot’s real assets. Once enough approvals had accumulated, the attacker triggered a single coordinated transaction that swept approximately $7.5 million in ETH and stablecoins from the bot’s wallets. The stolen funds were quickly converted to ETH and sent through Tornado Cash.

How can I avoid getting hacked this way?

Revoke token approvals you no longer need. Vet the contracts you interact with before you sign anything. Check whether the contract is verified on Etherscan. Look at when it was deployed and by whom. Be wary of new, unaudited pools offering too-good-to-be-true trades – it may have been designed that way on purpose.

Chainalysis Research and Analysis July 2, 2026

Chainalysis Research and Analysis

Compliance teams, regulators, and investigators rely on blockchain analytics to uncover illicit activity and support enforcement actions, but every outcome depends on the quality of the underlying data. A single incorrect attribution can discredit related insights, derail investigations, and trigger wrongful customer terminations. Evaluating a provider requires scrutiny of the methodology, evidence, and safeguards behind every conclusion.

– Providers should explain whether common ownership is established deterministically or inferred probabilistically, and demonstrate how techniques adapt to distinct blockchain architectures.
– A label backed by law enforcement-seized data is fundamentally different from one based on an anonymous tip, and grouping logic should hold up even if a label is removed.
– Robust attribution requires differentiating between who interacts with an address and who ultimately controls it, particularly for exchange deposit addresses and nested custodial entities.
– Providers should be transparent about whether their methods have satisfied legal standards like Daubert and how they distinguish machine learning outputs from evidence-based conclusions.
– A reliable provider can walk you through exactly how any specific cluster was constructed and what evidence supports it.

Summary

  • OFAC updated its ISIS Khorasan (ISIS-K) designation to include 134 cryptocurrency wallet addresses (131 on TRON and 3 on Monero).
  • In a separate action, OFAC sanctioned individuals linked to the Latin American criminal organization Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), which moved illicit proceeds cross-border using crypto.

 

On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) updated its designation of ISIL Khorasan (ISIS-K) and added 134 cryptocurrency wallets as identifiers. ISIS-K is the Islamic State’s Pakistani and Afghan affiliate.

ISIS-K was first flagged as a Specially Designated Terrorist Group in September 2015. Today’s sanctions update includes 3 Monero (XMR) addresses and 131 TRON (TRX) addresses. Tether has frozen the balances on all 131 TRON addresses.

What is ISIS-K and what is their connection to crypto?

ISIS-K is a regional branch of Islamic State that is active throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several former Soviet Union countries in Central Asia. The group has been responsible for numerous terror attacks targeting civilians in multiple countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Russia. Their media branch, al-Azaim Media Foundation, spreads propaganda through the publication Voice of Khorasan and has historically solicited crypto through donation campaigns on various websites and messaging platforms. Chainalysis has collected historical donation addresses on Tron, Monero, and Bitcoin.

Like many earlier public terrorist financing campaigns, donations to al-Azaim were historically smaller in size, reflecting individuals’ modest means but demonstrating their incentive to support the group.

On-chain analysis: ISIS-K’s TRON wallets

At the center of Wednesday’s sanctions are 131 TRX addresses controlled by the group. Those wallets have received over $1.4 million since 2023 and sent over $880,000. As shown in the Chainalysis Reactor graph below, the wallets have heavy exposure to mainstream services. Several of the designated wallets also sent funds to Syria-based crypto exchangers.

Past actions against ISIS

U.S. sanctions underscore how ISIS and its affiliates use cryptocurrency to fund their global operations.

In 2023, OFAC sanctioned Maldives-based ISIS-K operative Ali Shafiu; Chainalysis found that Shafiu’s TRON interacted with exchange deposit addresses that also had ties to Iranian exchanges. And just last month, OFAC sanctioned a network of Syrian money service businesses that served as a cash-out for ISIS financiers. Chainalysis’ investigation of the operative at the center of that action, Miloud Abderrahmane, shuttled money from mainstream exchanges to Middle Eastern donation campaigns.

Brazil syndicate separately targeted

In a separate action, OFAC designated two Brazilian nationals and four companies for their links to Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), a Latin American criminal group with operatives in the U.S. and São Paulo, its homebase. According to OFAC, the group’s drug traffickers laundered more than $30 million of illicit proceeds generated in the U.S, utilizing cryptocurrency to move funds back to Brazil.

This marks OFAC’s third action against PCC and its operatives, following the December 2021 designation of PCC as an organization and the March 2024 designation of Diego Macedo Gonçalves do Carmo for his role in laundering significant sums for the group.

Impact on cryptocurrency compliance

For global VASPs and financial institutions, these actions require immediate updates to sanctions screening and transaction monitoring protocols.

With Chainalysis’s solutions, organizations can monitor and detect exposure to these high-risk networks. We have labeled the relevant cryptocurrency addresses associated with today’s designations in our product suite to ensure our customers can proactively identify exposure and maintain global compliance standards.

FAQs

What was updated in the ISIS-K designation?

OFAC added 131 TRON wallet addresses and 3 Monero wallet addresses to the existing ISIS-K designation.

What is ISIS-K?

ISIS-K is a regional branch of Islamic State that operates in Central and South Asia. Their media branch Voice of Khorasan has historically solicited donations via crypto.

Who did OFAC designate in the PCC-related action?

OFAC designated two Brazilian nationals, Victor Henrique de Oliveira Shimada and Stella Stefanie Nunes Henrique de Oliveira, along with four companies: Victory Trading, Pixwave, and Wave (Brazil), and Avenidas Flutuantes (Portugal).

How did the PCC network use cryptocurrency?

According to OFAC, the network laundered more than $30 million in illicit proceeds generated in and around multiple U.S. cities, utilizing cryptocurrency to move funds back to Brazil on behalf of PCC.

What are the compliance requirements following these designations?

All U.S. persons must block property and interests in property of the designated individuals and entities. Because the designations carry secondary sanctions risks, foreign financial institutions that facilitate transactions for these parties risk being cut off from the U.S. financial system.