The Universal KYT API: A Technical Specification for Next-Generation Crypto-Asset Compliance

Section 1: The Crypto-Regulatory Imperative: A Landscape Analysis

The proliferation of Know-Your-Transaction (KYT) and blockchain analytics Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is not a phenomenon born of pure technological innovation. Rather, it is a direct and necessary response to a rapidly solidifying global regulatory consensus. These APIs represent the technical implementation of legal and compliance doctrines designed to bring the digital asset ecosystem into alignment with the established principles of global financial integrity. Understanding the architecture and function of these APIs is impossible without first deconstructing the regulatory framework that mandates their existence. This framework, driven by inter-governmental bodies, national financial intelligence units, and sanctions authorities, has transformed blockchain analysis from a niche forensic tool into an essential component of financial infrastructure. The features, data points, and even the response times of modern KYT APIs are a direct reflection of the specific, granular requirements imposed by this global regulatory apparatus.

1.1 The Global AML/CFT Framework for Digital Assets

At the apex of the global regulatory structure for financial crime is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental body that sets the international standards for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT).1 The FATF's extension of its mandate to cover virtual assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) marked a pivotal moment, signaling that the crypto-asset economy would not be permitted to operate outside the bounds of the traditional financial system's compliance obligations.

The core of the FATF's approach is the application of its long-standing Recommendations to the virtual asset space. This requires countries to ensure that VASPs are regulated for AML/CFT purposes, licensed or registered, and subject to effective systems for monitoring and supervision.1 The central tenet of this approach is the "risk-based approach," which obligates firms to understand the specific money laundering and terrorist financing risks they face and to apply compliance measures commensurate with those risks.3 This principle is the foundational driver for the development of sophisticated KYT APIs. A simple blacklist is insufficient for a risk-based approach; firms require dynamic tools that can provide a nuanced understanding of risk based on a multitude of factors, which is precisely what modern analytics platforms aim to deliver.

Under these standards, VASPs are held to the same core duties as traditional financial institutions. These include conducting Customer Due Diligence (CDD) to verify the identity of their clients, maintaining comprehensive records of transactions, and filing Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) with the relevant national authorities when they detect activity that may be linked to illicit finance.2 Each of these duties creates a demand for data that can only be met at scale through automated, API-driven solutions. CDD is enhanced by on-chain data that can corroborate a customer's stated source of funds, while transaction monitoring and STR filing are the primary functions of KYT systems.

The impetus for this stringent regulatory focus stems from the perceived anonymity of crypto-assets. While most blockchains are transparent, the pseudonymous nature of wallet addresses presents a significant challenge for regulators, who see it as a potent vector for concealing illicit financial flows.5 The core purpose of blockchain analytics and KYT APIs is to de-anonymize these transactions by linking pseudonymous addresses to real-world entities and known risk categories, thereby piercing the veil of anonymity and making the blockchain legible to compliance systems.

1.2 The U.S. Regulatory Environment: FinCEN and the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)

In the United States, the primary legal framework for combating financial crime is the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which is administered by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).6 A landmark 2019 joint statement by FinCEN, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) definitively clarified that cryptocurrency exchanges and other VASPs are considered Money Services Businesses (MSBs) under the BSA.8 This classification was not a mere formality; it formally subjected the U.S. crypto industry to the full weight of the nation's AML/CFT regulations, placing them on par with banks and traditional money transmitters.4

Compliance with the BSA is structured around what are known as the "five pillars" of an effective AML program: (1) a system of internal controls, (2) the designation of a compliance officer, (3) ongoing employee training, (4) independent testing of the program, and (5) customer due diligence.8 KYT APIs are the technological backbone of the first and fifth pillars. They are the primary internal control for monitoring transactions and are an essential tool for conducting ongoing due diligence on customer activity. The data and alerts generated by these APIs are the primary inputs for the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing process, which is a cornerstone of the BSA framework.7

FinCEN's guidance often drills down into specific criminal typologies, providing financial institutions with "red flag indicators" to help them identify suspicious activity. A recent example is the notice regarding the use of Convertible Virtual Currency (CVC) kiosks, also known as crypto ATMs, in fraud schemes, particularly those targeting the elderly.10 The notice details red flags such as a customer with no history of CVC activity suddenly conducting high-value transactions, or transactions structured to fall just below reporting thresholds.10 This level of specificity from a regulator demonstrates a clear expectation that compliance systems must be capable of more than just checking addresses against a static list. They must be able to perform behavioral analysis, monitor transaction velocity and volume, and detect complex patterns. This directly translates into the need for highly configurable, rule-based alerting features within KYT APIs, which leading providers now offer.13

1.3 The "Travel Rule" (FATF Recommendation 16): A Technical Mandate for Data Exchange

Perhaps the most technically challenging regulation to emerge from the FATF is the application of its Recommendation 16, commonly known as the "Travel Rule," to the crypto-asset sector. The rule requires that when a VASP conducts a transaction on behalf of a customer, it must obtain and hold required and accurate originator (sender) and beneficiary (recipient) information, and transmit this information to the counterparty VASP or financial institution.15

The implementation of the Travel Rule has been complicated by a "sunrise issue," where different jurisdictions have adopted the rule at different times and with different thresholds.18 For example, the United States sets the threshold at $3,000, while the UK and EU have a threshold of 1,000 euros, and some EU regulations under the Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR) apply the rule to all transactions regardless of amount.15 This regulatory fragmentation creates a complex compliance matrix for global VASPs, who must be able to adapt their processes based on the jurisdiction of their counterparty. This necessitates API-driven solutions that are flexible and can handle these jurisdictional nuances.

The technical implications of the Travel Rule are profound and extend beyond standard KYT. The rule creates a two-fold compliance burden. First, a VASP must screen the transaction itself for money laundering risk (the KYT function). Second, it must perform due diligence on the counterparty VASP to ensure it is a legitimate, regulated entity capable of securely receiving the required personally identifiable information (PII).16 This has given rise to a new category of compliance products, often called "Know-Your-VASP" (KYV), which are designed to assess the risk profile of other exchanges and services.20 A truly comprehensive compliance API must therefore provide not only data about the transaction's on-chain risk but also intelligence about the off-chain entity on the other side of the transfer. This requirement for inter-VASP communication and due diligence is a key driver in the design of a universal API.

1.4 Sanctions Compliance: The Non-Negotiable Baseline

The most rigid and unforgiving aspect of financial compliance is adherence to economic sanctions. Administered in the U.S. by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), sanctions are a matter of strict liability; interacting with a sanctioned entity, knowingly or not, constitutes a violation.7 OFAC has made it unequivocally clear that these rules apply to the crypto ecosystem by adding specific cryptocurrency addresses to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List.21

This creates a non-negotiable requirement for all VASPs to screen transactions and wallets against these lists. Consequently, the most basic feature of any KYT or address screening API is a check to see if an address is on the SDN list or other major global sanctions lists.21 However, sophisticated illicit actors rarely transact directly from a sanctioned address. Instead, they attempt to obscure the origin of funds by passing them through a series of intermediate wallets, a technique known as "layering" or "hopping."

Recognizing this, regulators and leading compliance providers have established that effective sanctions screening must go beyond direct exposure. It must also account for indirect exposure by tracing the flow of funds back several "hops" from a deposit to see if they originated from a sanctioned entity, or forward several hops from a withdrawal to see if they are destined for one.23 This capability to trace funds and analyze both direct and indirect exposure is a critical feature that separates rudimentary screening tools from enterprise-grade KYT platforms. The complexity of this analysis, especially across different blockchains, makes a powerful API indispensable for any institution seeking to maintain a defensible sanctions compliance program.

The evolution of these regulatory mandates reveals a clear pattern: the features of KYT APIs are not developed in a vacuum. They are a direct, causal response to the increasing sophistication of global financial regulations. The journey began with the simple requirement to check against sanctions lists, which led to the creation of basic address screening APIs.21 As regulators introduced the more nuanced "risk-based approach," the market responded with tools that offered more than a binary "good/bad" answer, developing configurable risk scores, granular risk categories, and customizable rule engines to handle the inherent subjectivity of risk assessment.13 The FATF Travel Rule then introduced a new technical challenge—identifying and vetting the counterparty VASP—which spurred the development of specialized "Know-Your-VASP" products and API features.20 The feature set of a modern KYT API is, therefore, a direct codification of regulatory expectations, a technical manifestation of the global compliance consensus.

Simultaneously, a strategic shift is occurring within traditional financial (TradFi) institutions. What began as a "compliance burden"—the need to identify and manage exposure to the crypto world—is evolving into a "data opportunity." Initially, a bank's primary concern might have been identifying wire transfers destined for crypto exchanges to manage its risk profile.26 However, as institutional adoption of digital assets accelerates, these same banks now need to conduct comprehensive due diligence on crypto-native firms (exchanges, funds, custodians) that are becoming their clients and partners.26 KYT APIs provide a standardized, data-driven methodology to assess the risk profile of a potential crypto counterparty by analyzing its on-chain footprint.20 Furthermore, when onboarding high-net-worth individuals whose wealth is derived from crypto, the data from these APIs becomes an invaluable tool for verifying the source of wealth (SoW) with a level of transparency that traditional financial records cannot offer.26 This indicates that the data provided by KYT APIs has a strategic value that extends far beyond the immediate, real-time transaction check, serving the periodic and in-depth due diligence needs of the world's largest financial institutions.

Section 2: The KYT API Ecosystem: A Comparative Technical Review

The market for KYT and blockchain analytics is a dynamic and competitive landscape populated by a range of providers, from established incumbents with deep government ties to agile challengers focused on predictive technology. Understanding this ecosystem requires moving beyond marketing claims to analyze the core technical capabilities, product suites, and strategic positioning of each key player. This comparative review will survey the market leaders, identify important challengers, and draw a crucial distinction between specialized compliance intelligence providers and the broader blockchain data industry.

2.1 Market Leaders: The Incumbent Triad

The top tier of the KYT market is dominated by three firms that have established significant market share, technological depth, and brand recognition: Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs.

Chainalysis stands as the most prominent player, largely due to its strong relationships with government agencies, law enforcement, and regulators worldwide.28 Its data is often considered the standard for investigations and has been used as evidence in high-profile court cases, lending it a powerful brand of authority and trust.28 The Chainalysis product suite is comprehensive, reflecting its diverse customer base:

KYT (Know Your Transaction): Its core real-time and post-transaction monitoring engine, designed for continuous screening of deposits and withdrawals on a VASP's platform.20
Address Screening: A proactive tool for assessing the risk of a wallet address before any transaction occurs, often used at the point of user onboarding or for checking withdrawal destinations.20
Reactor: An advanced visual investigation tool used by forensic analysts to manually trace the flow of funds across the blockchain, often through complex webs of mixers and cross-chain bridges.28

The company's key value proposition is built on the foundation of "data you can trust," emphasizing its sophisticated clustering heuristics and rigorous verification standards, which are crucial for its government and institutional clients who require court-admissible evidence.20

Elliptic has positioned itself as the solution of choice for large-scale, enterprise-grade implementations, particularly among the world's largest crypto exchanges and financial institutions that require high-throughput, low-latency API performance.25 Its product offerings are designed for programmatic integration and automation:

Lens: A real-time, multi-asset wallet screening tool for assessing risk at scale.25
Navigator: A fully automated crypto transaction monitoring platform that serves as its primary KYT solution.25
Investigator: Its forensic tool for deep-dive, cross-chain investigations.25

Elliptic's technical differentiation lies in its "Holistic" technology, a proprietary method for achieving cross-chain analysis that aims to provide a unified view of risk across disparate blockchains.25 The company emphasizes the scalability of its API, its high degree of configurability to match a client's specific risk appetite, and its broad coverage of crypto-assets, which it claims covers 99% of the market by trading volume.25

TRM Labs has built a strong reputation for its fast-moving threat intelligence and the sheer breadth of its asset and blockchain coverage.31 It appeals to clients who need to stay ahead of emerging threats and require visibility into a vast and rapidly expanding universe of digital assets, including NFTs and DeFi protocols.35 TRM Labs offers a unified platform that integrates various compliance functions. A key differentiator is its granularity, offering over 150 configurable risk categories, including those that map directly to FATF's predicate offenses for money laundering.35 Another significant feature is its "glass box" attribution model, which, unlike some competitors' "black box" approaches, shows users the source and confidence level for every piece of attribution data, making its findings more defensible and transparent for investigators and auditors.36

2.2 Key Challengers and Niche Specialists

Beyond the top three, a number of innovative firms are competing by focusing on specific technological niches or user segments.

Merkle Science differentiates itself with a "predictive" and "behavior-based" approach to risk detection.31 Its platform, Compass, is designed to go beyond static blacklists of known illicit addresses by using behavioral analytics to identify suspicious patterns of activity that may indicate a new or unknown threat.39 This forward-looking methodology is particularly appealing to innovative fintech companies and DeFi projects that face novel and rapidly evolving risks.41

Scorechain, with its origins in Luxembourg, has a strong focus on the European regulatory landscape, particularly with the advent of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation.24 It emphasizes its ability to produce audit-ready reports and offers integrated tools to help clients comply with the Travel Rule.24 Its API and platform are marketed as being particularly user-friendly and easy to integrate, targeting a broad range of institutions from crypto-native businesses to traditional banks entering the digital asset space.22

Crystal Intelligence provides a comprehensive platform that includes real-time risk monitoring, advanced visual investigation tools, and what it terms "360° entity risk analysis".43 It is a strong competitor offering a full suite of compliance and forensic capabilities.44

Finally, firms like ComplyAdvantage and Sumsub represent a different strategic approach. They offer all-in-one identity verification and AML compliance platforms that cover both fiat and crypto transactions.31 Rather than building their own blockchain analytics engines from the ground up, they often partner with one of the specialized providers, integrating Chainalysis or TRM Labs data into their broader workflow and case management systems via API.47

2.3 The Broader Blockchain Data Ecosystem

It is crucial to distinguish these specialized KYT and compliance providers from the wider field of blockchain data and analytics companies. Firms such as Nansen, Glassnode, Dune Analytics, and Amberdata also provide powerful APIs and data platforms.27 However, their primary focus is on market intelligence, investment analysis, DeFi analytics, and on-chain economic activity. While their data is invaluable for traders, researchers, and investors, it is not specifically structured to meet the rigorous demands of AML/CFT compliance. KYT is a highly specialized application of blockchain data, enriched with proprietary intelligence on illicit activities, real-world entity attribution, and configurable risk-scoring models designed explicitly for compliance officers and regulators.

A closer examination of the market reveals a structural segmentation into two distinct tiers: "Intelligence Providers" and "Workflow Integrators." The first tier, comprising firms like Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs, is engaged in the foundational, capital-intensive work of ingesting, processing, and enriching raw blockchain data. Their core intellectual property is the proprietary intelligence layer they build on top of the public ledger—the vast databases of attributed entities, the sophisticated clustering algorithms, and the constantly updated threat intelligence.25 They sell access to this intelligence. The second tier, which includes companies like Sumsub, Persona, and Authsignal, operates at a higher level of abstraction. These firms do not typically generate their own blockchain intelligence; instead, they consume it via the APIs of the first-tier providers.48 Their value proposition lies not in the data itself, but in the seamless integration of that data into a unified and efficient user workflow for case management, identity verification, or fraud prevention.46 This maturation of the market, where core analytics becomes a foundational "ingredient," has significant implications for API design. A universal API must be architected for easy consumption by these workflow integrators, who prioritize simplicity, reliability, and clear, actionable outputs over raw data complexity.

This competitive landscape is further defined by a technological arms race centered on "cross-chain analytics." As illicit actors have become more sophisticated, they no longer confine their activities to a single blockchain like Bitcoin. They actively use cross-chain bridges, decentralized exchanges (DEXs), and mixers to launder funds across multiple, disparate networks, deliberately attempting to break the chain of evidence. In response, the ability to trace these complex, multi-chain fund flows has become the key technical battleground among the top-tier providers.25 Elliptic heavily markets its "Holistic" technology, TRM Labs promotes its "automated one-click tracing" across chains, and Chainalysis emphasizes its capability to follow funds through bridges and swaps.25 This reality dictates that any modern, effective KYT API can no longer operate on a per-chain basis. It must be fundamentally chain-agnostic, capable of understanding and representing the context of value moving

between ecosystems, not just within them.

Table 2.1: Comparative Feature Matrix of Leading KYT API Providers

Feature	Chainalysis	Elliptic	TRM Labs	Merkle Science	Scorechain
Core Products	KYT, Address Screening, Reactor, Chainalysis DS 20	Navigator, Lens, Investigator, Data Fabric 25	Transaction Monitoring, Wallet Screening, Forensics, Triage 14	Compass, Tracker, Onchain Pulse 38	Wallet Screening API, Exploration Tool, KYT Reports 24
Stated Differentiator	Data trust, regulatory alignment, court-admissible evidence 20	Scalability for high-volume exchanges, configurability, "Holistic" cross-chain tech 25	Fast-moving threat intelligence, extensive asset coverage, "glass box" attribution 31	Predictive, behavior-based risk detection beyond blacklists 31	European regulatory focus (MiCA), audit-ready reporting, ease of integration 22
Blockchain Coverage	"Complete" coverage, auto-onboarding of new chains and standard tokens 28	Broadest coverage (99% of market), 100+ assets 25	Most extensive coverage: 100+ blockchains, 200M+ assets, including NFTs/DeFi 35	"Industry leading" cross-chain coverage, 10,000+ assets 38	100+ blockchains, including major chains and stablecoins 24
Risk Category Granularity	Comprehensive suite including sanctions, darknet, scams, etc.; customizable alerts 13	10+ configurable entity categories for risk scoring 32	150+ risk categories, including mapping to FATF predicate offenses 35	Customizable rules based on source of funds and suspicious behavior 39	Flexible risk engine adaptable to custom policies and jurisdictions 41
Cross-Chain Capability	Traces funds through bridges, mixers, and DEX swaps 28	"Holistic" technology for unified cross-chain risk assessment 25	Automated one-click cross-chain tracing 36	Cross-chain coverage for 200+ bridges 38	Multi-asset support in a single dashboard 41
Noted API Performance	"Straightforward integration process," efficient and cost-effective 13	High scalability; 150 analyses/sec (sync), 40 analyses/sec (async) 33	Fast API response time (<400ms for wallet screening), 99.99% API uptime 56	Ease of integration via APIs 40	Low-latency responses, high reliability, RESTful endpoints 22

Section 3: Deconstructing the KYT API Call: Payloads and Responses

A deep technical understanding of KYT systems requires moving beyond product descriptions to the level of the API call itself. While providers often treat their detailed API specifications as proprietary, it is possible to synthesize a clear and accurate model of their functionality by analyzing publicly available SDKs, integration guides, developer documentation, and partner materials. This deconstruction reveals common patterns in how these systems receive requests and, more importantly, in the structure and content of the actionable intelligence they return.

3.1 Common API Interaction Patterns: Real-Time vs. Batch & Asynchronous

KYT API integrations typically follow one of two fundamental patterns, dictated by the specific compliance workflow they are intended to support.

The first pattern is synchronous, real-time screening. This is used for pre-transaction risk assessment, such as when a user on an exchange requests to withdraw funds. In this model, the exchange's backend makes a blocking API call to the KYT provider, sending the details of the proposed withdrawal (e.g., the destination address). The system then waits for an immediate response. This response must be delivered with very low latency—TRM Labs, for example, cites a response time of under 400 milliseconds for its wallet screening API 56—as it is used to make an automated, in-flight decision: either approve the withdrawal, block it, or flag it for manual review. This synchronous pattern provides immediate risk intelligence but is generally suitable for lower volumes of individual checks due to API rate limiting.58

The second pattern is asynchronous or batch monitoring. This model is designed for high-volume, post-transaction analysis and ongoing monitoring of all platform activity. Instead of waiting for an immediate response, the client system "registers" a transaction with the KYT provider via an API call.53 The provider's system then processes this transaction in the background. If the transaction triggers a risk alert based on the client's configured rules, the provider can notify the client's system via a webhook or the client can periodically poll a separate API endpoint to retrieve any new alerts.53 This pattern is highly scalable, capable of handling millions of transactions daily, and is the standard for comprehensive, ongoing AML monitoring on large exchanges.33

3.2 Request Payloads: The Essential Inputs

The data sent to the KYT API—the request payload—varies in complexity depending on the type of analysis being performed.

For basic Address Screening (KYA/KYW), the payload is typically simple. The essential fields are the cryptocurrency address to be checked (a string) and an identifier for the asset or blockchain (e.g., "BTC", "ETH", "SOL").56 This is sufficient for a static risk assessment of the address itself.

For more comprehensive Transaction Monitoring (KYT), the API requires additional context to perform a meaningful analysis. While the exact field names vary between providers, a typical request payload will include the following key data points:

userId or customerReference: A stable, internal identifier that links the transaction to a specific user on the platform. This is crucial for building a holistic risk profile of the user over time.53
asset: The specific cryptocurrency or token being transferred (e.g., "USDT", "WETH").59
network or blockchain: The blockchain on which the transaction is occurring (e.g., "Ethereum", "Tron").53
transferReference or hash: The unique transaction identifier, or hash (txid), of the on-chain transfer.53
direction: An indicator of whether the transaction is a "deposit" into the platform (often labeled "received" or "inbound") or a "withdrawal" from the platform ("sent" or "outbound").47
address: The external, counterparty address involved in the transaction.
amount: The value of the transaction.

This richer dataset allows the KYT engine to analyze not just the risk of the external address but also the context of the transaction in relation to the specific user's historical behavior.

3.3 Response Payloads: The Actionable Intelligence

The response payload is the core product of a KYT API. It delivers the intelligence needed to make compliance decisions. A comprehensive response typically includes several layers of information, moving from a high-level summary to granular details.

The most fundamental component is the core risk assessment. This is designed for easy consumption by automated systems and typically includes:

A summary riskScore, which can be numeric (e.g., a scale of 0-10) or categorical (e.g., "Low," "Medium," "High," "Severe").30
A simple boolean isSanctioned flag, which provides an unambiguous signal to block any transaction involving an address on a sanctions list like OFAC's SDN list.60

To support manual review by compliance analysts, the response must provide the "why" behind the score. This is achieved through granular risk indicators. The API will return a list of all the specific risk categories that were triggered by the address or transaction. These categories are highly specific and can include "sanctions," "darknet-market," "scam," "mixer," "gambling," "child sexual abuse material (CSAM)," and dozens or even hundreds of others.30

A critical element of the response is entity attribution. The API will identify, where possible, the real-world entity that controls the counterparty address, such as a known crypto exchange (e.g., "Binance"), a DeFi protocol (e.g., "Uniswap Router"), or a known illicit service (e.g., "Hydra Market").56 Leading providers often include a

confidenceScore with their attribution to indicate the strength of the evidence linking the address to the entity.36

Finally, the most sophisticated responses include a detailed exposure analysis, also known as fund flow or source/destination of funds analysis. This part of the payload provides a breakdown of where the funds in a transaction came from (for deposits) or are going to (for withdrawals). This analysis is not limited to the direct counterparty; it traces the funds through multiple "hops" to reveal indirect exposure to risky categories.23 For example, a deposit may not come directly from a darknet market, but the API can reveal that 90% of the funds in the sending wallet originated from a darknet market two hops prior. This level of detail is essential for a robust, risk-based compliance program.

Table 3.1: Synthesized JSON Model for an "Address Screening" API Response

This model represents a consolidated, best-in-class response for a synchronous address screening request, combining features described by multiple leading providers.

{  
  "requestId": "a1b2c3d4-e5f6-7890-abcd-ef1234567890",  
  "address": "bc1qar0srrr7xfkvy5l643lydnw9re59gtzzwf5mdq",  
  "asset": "BTC",  
  "blockchain": "Bitcoin",  
  "timestamp": "2025-09-30T14:30:00Z",  
  "summary": {  
    "riskScore": 9.5,  
    "riskLevel": "SEVERE",  
    "verdict": "BLOCK",  
    "isSanctioned": true  
  },  
  "attribution": {  
    "entityName": "Lazarus Group Wallet (OFAC)",  
    "entityCategory": "Sanctioned Entity",  
    "confidence": "High"  
  },  
  "riskIndicators": [],  
  "exposure": {  
    "sourceOfFunds": [],  
    "destinationOfFunds": []  
  }  
}

Table 3.2: Synthesized JSON Model for a "Transaction Monitoring" API Response

This model builds upon the address screening response, adding transaction-specific context and behavioral alerts for a more holistic risk assessment, typically returned from an asynchronous monitoring process.

{  
  "analysisId": "tx-analysis-z9y8x7w6",  
  "transaction": {  
    "hash": "0xabc123...",  
    "direction": "deposit",  
    "asset": "USDT",  
    "blockchain": "Ethereum",  
    "amount": 50000.00,  
    "amountUSD": 49950.00,  
    "timestamp": "2025-10-01T10:00:00Z"  
  },  
  "user": {  
    "internalId": "cust-789123",  
    "riskProfile": "High"  
  },  
  "counterparty": {  
    "address": "0x123abc...",  
    "summary": {  
      "riskScore": 6.8,  
      "riskLevel": "HIGH",  
      "verdict": "REVIEW",  
      "isSanctioned": false  
    },  
    "attribution": {  
      "entityName": "Unregistered VASP \- High Risk Jurisdiction",  
      "entityCategory": "VASP",  
      "confidence": "Medium"  
    },  
    "riskIndicators": []  
  },  
  "behavioralAlerts": []
}

Section 4: The Universal KYT API: A Design Specification for the Future of Compliance

The preceding analysis reveals a market of powerful but fragmented solutions. While leading providers offer sophisticated capabilities, their APIs are proprietary, creating vendor lock-in and integration overhead for institutions that may wish to use multiple data sources. Furthermore, no single API is explicitly designed from the ground up to serve the distinct and often conflicting needs of all key stakeholders: the high-speed automation engines of exchanges, the detailed analytical workflows of compliance officers, the rigorous oversight of regulators, and the evidence-based demands of auditors.

This section proposes a design specification for a Universal KYT API, architected to address these challenges. The design is not merely an aggregation of existing features but a rethinking of how compliance intelligence should be structured and delivered in a mature digital asset ecosystem.

4.1 Design Principles

The architecture of the Universal KYT API is founded on four core principles:

Unified & Agnostic: The API must abstract away the complexities of the underlying blockchains. All requests and responses will use a standardized, human-readable naming convention for assets and networks (e.g., blockchain: "Ethereum", asset: "USDC"), regardless of their on-chain representation. This principle ensures that as new blockchains and tokens emerge, they can be integrated without altering the fundamental structure of the API contract.
RESTful Architecture: The API will adhere to the principles of Representational State Transfer (REST), using standard HTTP verbs (GET, POST, PATCH), predictable resource-oriented URLs, and standard HTTP response codes to indicate success or failure. This ensures maximum interoperability and allows developers to leverage existing tools and knowledge, dramatically reducing integration time and complexity.
Stakeholder-Centric Response: This is the central innovation of the proposed design. Instead of a single, monolithic response object, the API will return a layered payload, with distinct, self-contained sections tailored to the specific needs of different consumers. An automation engine can parse a lightweight automationLayer, while a compliance analyst can access a rich complianceLayer for manual investigation. This layered approach resolves the inherent tension between the need for speed and the need for depth.
Auditability by Design: Every analysis performed by the API will be treated as an immutable event. Each response will contain a unique analysisId, a precise timestamp, and a cryptographic hash of the data and rule-set used for the analysis. This creates a verifiable, tamper-evident audit trail that provides a robust defense against regulatory scrutiny and meets the emerging standards for digital asset auditing.63

4.2 Endpoint Architecture

The API's functionality is exposed through a set of logical, resource-based endpoints.

POST /v1/screening/address
- Action: Performs a synchronous, real-time risk assessment of one or more cryptocurrency addresses.
- Use Case: Pre-transaction screening of withdrawal addresses or initial risk assessment during user onboarding. Designed for low-latency, in-flight decisioning.
POST /v1/monitoring/transaction
- Action: Registers a transaction with the monitoring system for asynchronous analysis. The system immediately returns a unique analysisId for tracking.
- Use Case: High-volume, post-facto monitoring of all platform deposits and withdrawals. This is the core engine for ongoing AML compliance.
GET /v1/monitoring/analysis/{analysisId}
- Action: Retrieves the full, detailed analysis result for a previously registered transaction, identified by its analysisId.
- Use Case: Used by case management systems and compliance analysts to retrieve the details of a transaction that has generated an alert.
GET /v1/monitoring/alerts
- Action: Retrieves a paginated list of all alerts generated within a given time frame, with powerful filtering capabilities based on user ID, risk score, alert type, asset, and more, modeled on the comprehensive filtering options offered by providers like Elliptic.65
- Use Case: Populating compliance dashboards and work queues for analyst review.
POST /v1/vasp/due-diligence
- Action: Generates a comprehensive due diligence report on a counterparty VASP, identified by its name or a known cluster of addresses.
- Use Case: Fulfilling the counterparty due diligence requirements of the FATF Travel Rule before establishing a relationship with another VASP. The response would include jurisdictional information, licensing status, and an aggregated on-chain risk score based on its transaction history.
POST /v1/travel-rule/data-exchange
- Action: A conceptual endpoint designed to facilitate the secure transmission of required originator and beneficiary PII between VASPs in a standardized format.
- Use Case: A programmatic solution to the Travel Rule's data transfer requirement, abstracting away the complexities of different underlying messaging protocols (e.g., TRP, TRISA).

4.3 The Unified Payload and Response Model (Detailed JSON Schemas)

The cornerstone of the Universal API is its innovative, multi-layered response schema. The following JSON schema for the response from GET /v1/monitoring/analysis/{analysisId} illustrates this stakeholder-centric design.

{  
  "analysisId": "tx-analysis-z9y8x7w6v5u4",  
  "requestTimestamp": "2025-10-01T10:00:05Z",  
  "analysisTimestamp": "2025-10-01T10:00:15Z",  
  "inputParameters": {  
    "hash": "0xabc123...",  
    "blockchain": "Ethereum",  
    "asset": "USDC",  
    "direction": "deposit",  
    "internalUserId": "cust-789123"  
  },  
  "automationLayer": {  
    "verdict": "REVIEW",  
    "riskScore": 7.8,  
    "triggeredRules": []  
  },  
  "complianceLayer": {  
    "counterparty": {  
      "address": "0x123abc...",  
      "attribution": {  
        "entityName": "GamerPay Exchange",  
        "entityCategory": "Gambling",  
        "jurisdiction": "CY",  
        "confidence": "High"  
      },  
      "riskIndicators": []  
    },  
    "fundFlow": {  
      "directExposure": {  
        "sourceCategory": "Gambling",  
        "sourceEntity": "GamerPay Exchange"  
      },  
      "indirectExposure": {  
        "maxHopsTraced": 10,  
        "significantSources": [
          {
            "category": "Darknet Market",
            "percentOfFunds": 35.0  
          }  
        ]  
      }  
    },  
    "behavioralAlerts": []  
  },  
  "forensicLayer": {  
    "fullTraceGraphUrl": "https://api.universal-kyt.com/v1/graphs/graph-id-123",  
    "crossChainFlows": []  
  },  
  "auditLayer": {  
    "dataProvider": "Universal KYT API v1.0",  
    "ruleConfigurationVersion": "ruleset-v2.4.1-2025-09-15",  
    "dataSnapshotTimestamp": "2025-10-01T10:00:00Z",  
    "dataSnapshotHash": "sha256:a1b2c3..."  
  }  
}

This layered structure is a direct solution to the conflicting requirements of the various stakeholders. An exchange's automated withdrawal system, which prioritizes speed above all else, can be configured to only request or parse the automationLayer. This provides a simple, low-latency verdict (ALLOW, REVIEW, BLOCK) and an overall risk score, sufficient for programmatic decision-making.62 A compliance analyst, when a case is created for a transaction with a

REVIEW verdict, is presented with the rich context in the complianceLayer. This layer provides the detailed attribution, specific risk indicators, and fund flow analysis necessary for an informed human judgment.13 For high-stakes investigations, law enforcement or internal forensic teams can access the

forensicLayer, which provides raw data for deep analysis, such as a full transaction graph or details of cross-chain movements. Finally, and crucially, the auditLayer serves the needs of internal and external auditors. By providing a version identifier for the rule set and a cryptographic hash of the underlying data used for the analysis, it creates a verifiable and immutable record of the compliance check. This directly addresses the increasing demand from auditing bodies for provable, transparent, and reproducible compliance processes for digital assets.63 This design transforms the API from a simple data provider into a comprehensive system of record for compliance activity.

The evolution of the market indicates that the future of KYT extends beyond reactive transaction screening. It is moving towards a more holistic and proactive model of ecosystem risk management and demonstrable compliance. The proposed API design anticipates this shift. The inclusion of a dedicated /vasp/due-diligence endpoint reflects the proactive requirements of regulations like the Travel Rule, which mandate due diligence on counterparties before a transaction relationship is established.18 Similarly, the creation of the

auditLayer is a direct response to the formalization of auditing standards for digital assets.64 Auditors will no longer accept a risk score at face value; they will require evidence of the methodology and data integrity behind that score. The

dataSnapshotHash provides a cryptographically verifiable link between the compliance decision and the precise data and rules used to generate it. This elevates the API from a mere risk-scoring tool to an end-to-end compliance and auditability engine, directly catering to the sophisticated needs of TradFi, regulators, and auditing firms, as mandated by the user query.

Section 5: Strategic Implementation and Recommendations

The design of a Universal KYT API is a technical blueprint; its true value is realized only through strategic implementation within a robust, multi-faceted compliance framework. Deploying this API is not a one-time technical task but the foundation of an ongoing operational process that combines automation, expert human oversight, and a forward-looking approach to risk management. This final section provides actionable guidance for integrating the API into a holistic compliance workflow and offers specific recommendations for key stakeholders.

5.1 Integrating the API into a Holistic Compliance Workflow

An effective compliance program uses the API as the central nervous system of a larger operational body. This involves creating a clear and efficient process for handling the intelligence the API provides.

A best practice is to implement a Triage and Escalation Funnel. This workflow leverages the automationLayer of the API response for high-speed, initial triage. A well-defined rule set within the client's system can automatically process the API's verdict:

Transactions with a verdict of ALLOW and a riskScore below a low threshold (e.g., < 4.0) are cleared automatically with no human intervention, ensuring a frictionless experience for the vast majority of legitimate users.
Transactions with a verdict of BLOCK (e.g., those involving a sanctioned address) are immediately and automatically rejected, preventing illicit funds from entering or leaving the platform.
Transactions with a verdict of REVIEW are automatically routed to a case management system, creating a new case and populating it with the rich data from the complianceLayer of the API response.53 This case is then assigned to a compliance analyst for manual investigation.

The effectiveness of this funnel is entirely dependent on the Configuration of the Rule Engine. It is critical that an institution does not rely on a vendor's default settings. As emphasized by all major providers, the ability to customize risk settings is a key feature.13 An institution must tailor its risk thresholds, the weighting of different risk categories, and the parameters for behavioral alerts based on its specific risk appetite, the nature of its business, its customer demographics, and the specific regulatory requirements of its jurisdiction.13 For example, a crypto casino may have a higher tolerance for gambling-related funds than a retail exchange, and this difference must be reflected in its rule configuration.

Finally, technology must be complemented by The Human Element. The purpose of the API is not to replace compliance professionals but to empower them. An automated system can flag a transaction, but it often requires a trained analyst to interpret the nuanced data in the complianceLayer, conduct further investigation if necessary, and make a final, defensible decision on whether to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).70 Continuous training for compliance staff on emerging criminal typologies, regulatory updates, and the effective use of the analytics platform is a critical component of any successful implementation.20

5.2 Preparing for the Future of Crypto Compliance

The digital asset landscape is in a constant state of flux. A compliance framework built today must be designed to adapt to the challenges of tomorrow.

The DeFi Challenge is paramount. Monitoring transactions that interact with decentralized exchanges (DEXs), liquidity pools, mixers like Tornado Cash, and complex smart contracts is significantly more difficult than monitoring transfers between centralized exchanges.21 The Universal API's

forensicLayer and detailed fund flow analysis are designed to provide the necessary visibility into these complex interactions, but compliance teams must develop specific expertise in understanding DeFi protocols and their unique risk profiles.

The issue of Cross-Chain and L2 Scalability will only grow in complexity. As more value moves across a multitude of interconnected blockchains and Layer 2 scaling solutions (e.g., Optimism, Arbitrum), the task of tracing funds becomes exponentially harder. The chain-agnostic design of the Universal API is a foundational requirement to address this, but both the API provider and the client institution must be committed to continuously expanding coverage and refining cross-chain tracing heuristics.

Looking further ahead, the next frontier is Predictive Analytics and AI. The current generation of KYT is largely reactive; it is exceptionally good at identifying links to known illicit activity. The next generation, as hinted at by providers like Merkle Science, will increasingly leverage machine learning and artificial intelligence to identify anomalous patterns and predict emerging threats before they are widely known and blacklisted.31 An institution's compliance strategy should anticipate this shift, planning for the integration of more sophisticated, AI-driven risk models that can detect subtle deviations from normal behavior that may signal novel forms of financial crime.

5.3 Recommendations for Stakeholders

The Universal KYT API is designed to be a multi-faceted tool, and different stakeholders should leverage its capabilities in distinct ways to maximize its value.

For Exchanges & VASPs: The primary focus should be on leveraging the automationLayer and the API's configurability to achieve operational efficiency at scale. The goal is to automate the clearance of the vast majority of low-risk transactions to provide a seamless user experience, while using the rich data from the complianceLayer to enable a small, expert team of analysts to focus only on the highest-risk cases. This maximizes both security and business growth.
For Traditional Finance: TradFi institutions should look beyond real-time transaction monitoring and focus on the API's deep due diligence capabilities. The /v1/vasp/due-diligence endpoint should be integrated into standard counterparty onboarding and periodic review processes. The detailed fund flow analysis should be used as a primary tool for conducting source-of-wealth (SoW) checks for clients with significant crypto holdings, providing a level of transparency that is impossible to achieve with traditional financial records alone.
For Regulators: Government agencies and regulators should leverage the API's forensic and monitoring capabilities to gain market-wide insights into financial crime typologies and systemic risks. By aggregating anonymized data from reporting entities, they can identify emerging threats, monitor the effectiveness of their policies, and use the detailed trace data from the forensicLayer to conduct effective supervision and enforcement actions.
For Auditing Firms: The auditLayer represents a paradigm shift for digital asset auditing. Auditing firms should develop new, data-driven audit programs that leverage this feature. Instead of simply reviewing policies and procedures, auditors can now perform direct, substantive testing of compliance controls. They can request the auditLayer data for a sample of transactions and use the dataSnapshotHash to cryptographically verify that the compliance check was performed correctly against the specified rule set and data at that point in time. This enables a new level of assurance and allows auditors to provide a much more robust opinion on the effectiveness of a VASP's AML/CFT control environment.

Works cited

Security Issues with Crypto—The Bank Secrecy Act, Anti–Money Laundering, and Countering the Financing of Terrorism - The Bretton Woods Committee, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.brettonwoods.org/sites/default/files/documents/BWC-Brief7-Crypto-Security_FNL-web.pdf
Virtual Assets - FATF, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/topics/virtual-assets.html
A Guide to Anti-Money Laundering for Crypto Firms - ComplyAdvantage, accessed October 1, 2025, https://get.complyadvantage.com/crypto-aml-guide
Guarding Against Illicit Activities: Understanding Crypto Exchange AML Audits, accessed October 1, 2025, https://financialcrimeacademy.org/crypto-exchange-aml-audits/
Virtual Currencies: Key Definitions and Potential AML/CFT Risks - FATF, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Methodsandtrends/Virtual-currency-definitions-aml-cft-risk.html
Advisory on Illicit Activity Involving Convertible Virtual Currency - FinCEN, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/advisory/2019-05-10/FinCEN%20Advisory%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf
Anti-Money Laundering / Countering The Financing Of Terrorism (AML/CFT) | FDIC.gov, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.fdic.gov/banker-resource-center/anti-money-laundering-countering-financing-terrorism-amlcft
How do AML regulations apply to crypto exchanges? - Persona, accessed October 1, 2025, https://withpersona.com/blog/aml-crypto
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) | FINRA.org, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/aml
FinCEN Advisory on Crypto ATM Scams | America's Credit Unions, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.americascreditunions.org/blogs/compliance/fincen-advisory-crypto-atm-scams
FinCEN's Focus on Cryptocurrency Kiosks and Financial Crime | Money Laundering Watch, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2025/08/fincens-focus-on-cryptocurrency-kiosks-and-financial-crime/
FinCEN Notice on the Use of Convertible Virtual Currency Kiosks for Scam Payments and Other Illicit Activity, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.fincen.gov/system/files/2025-08/FinCEN-Notice-CVCKIOSK.pdf
KYT Crypto Transaction Monitoring - Chainalysis, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/product/kyt/
TRM Transaction Monitoring | Continuously Monitor Digital Assets - TRM Labs, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/blockchain-intelligence-platform/transaction-monitoring
Crypto Travel Rule: Obligations, Thresholds & Impact | Ondato Blog, accessed October 1, 2025, https://ondato.com/blog/crypto-travel-rule/
What is the Crypto Travel Rule? An Overview - iDenfy, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.idenfy.com/blog/crypto-travel-rule/
Unravelling the Travel Rule: AML requirements for cryptoasset businesses - Clifford Chance, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/PDFDocuments/article-13-ossio.pdf
Everything VASPs Need to Know about the FATF Travel Rule - 21 Analytics, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.21analytics.ch/what-is-the-fatf-travel-rule/
G. FATF Travel Rule - the VARA Rulebook, accessed October 1, 2025, https://rulebooks.vara.ae/rulebook/g-fatf-travel-rule
Crypto Compliance Solution - Chainalysis, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/solution/crypto-compliance/
Free Crypto Sanctions Screening Tools - Chainalysis, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/free-cryptocurrency-sanctions-screening-tools/
AML Compliance API for Crypto Transactions - Scorechain, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.scorechain.com/resources/crypto-glossary/aml-compliance-api
Sanctions screening & hops in crypto transactions: ensuring detection of sanctions risks, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.elliptic.co/blog/analysis/sanctions-screening-and-hops-in-crypto-transactions-ensuring-detection-of-sanctions-risks
Home - Scorechain | Blockchain & Digital Assets Compliance, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.scorechain.com/
Elliptic: Blockchain Analytics & Crypto Compliance Solutions, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.elliptic.co/
The Complete Crypto Compliance Program Guide for Financial Institutions - TRM Labs, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/guides/crypto-compliance-program-guide-for-financial-institutions
Amberdata: Best Crypto Market & Blockchain API, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.amberdata.io/
Chainalysis: The Blockchain Data Platform, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/
Crypto Investigations Solution - Chainalysis, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/solution/crypto-investigations/
Cryptocurrency Address Screening - Chainalysis, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/product/address-screening/
Top KYC/AML Providers for Crypto (2025), accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.tokenmetrics.com/blog/top-regulatory-compliance-kyc-aml-providers-2025
Crypto Wallet Screening and Monitoring | Elliptic Lens, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.elliptic.co/platform/lens
Crypto Transaction Monitoring | Elliptic Navigator, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.elliptic.co/platform/navigator
Elliptic | X-Sight Marketplace, accessed October 1, 2025, https://marketplace.niceactimize.com/en-US/apps/306213/elliptic
TRM Labs | Blockchain Intelligence Platform, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/
TRM Forensics | Blockchain Investigations Platform - TRM Labs, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/blockchain-intelligence-platform/forensics
Transaction monitoring | TRM Glossary - TRM Labs, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/glossary/transaction-monitoring
Merkle Science: The Predictive Crypto Risk & Intelligence Platform, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.merklescience.com/
Compass - Merkle Science, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.merklescience.com/platform/transaction-wallet-monitoring
Competitor - Merkle Science, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.merklescience.com/competitor
Chainalysis vs. Merkle Science - Scorechain | Blockchain & Digital Assets Compliance, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.scorechain.com/resources/crypto-glossary/chainalysis-vs-merkle-science
Crypto AML API - Scorechain | Blockchain & Digital Assets Compliance, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.scorechain.com/resources/crypto-glossary/crypto-aml-api
Blockchain Intelligence & Crypto Compliance Platform - Crystal Intelligence Analytics for Crypto Compliance, accessed October 1, 2025, https://crystalintelligence.com/
Crystal Blockchain Analytics & Crypto Compliance – Crystal Blockchain provides transaction monitoring and analysis for financial institutions, accessed October 1, 2025, https://demo.crystalintelligence.com/
Crypto Analytics for Compliance - Crystal Expert, accessed October 1, 2025, https://crystalintelligence.com/crypto-analytics-for-compliance/
Crypto AML Check - Cryptocurrency Transaction Monitoring Solution - Sumsub, accessed October 1, 2025, https://sumsub.com/crypto-monitoring/
Chainalysis crypto transactions - Sumsub, accessed October 1, 2025, https://docs.sumsub.com/reference/chainalysis-%D1%81rypto-transactions
TRM Labs - Sumsub, accessed October 1, 2025, https://docs.sumsub.com/lang-zh_CN/docs/trm-labs
Chainalysis - Sumsub, accessed October 1, 2025, https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/chainalysis
20 Popular Blockchain Analytics Tools and Companies - CoinMarketCap, accessed October 1, 2025, https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/20-popular-blockchain-analytics-tools-and-companies
Blockchain Analytics: Top Companies And How It Works - Milk Road, accessed October 1, 2025, https://milkroad.com/guide/blockchain-analytics/
Integrate Your Data and Tools With Persona | Persona Marketplace, accessed October 1, 2025, https://withpersona.com/solutions/persona-marketplace
Setting up a Chainalysis Know Your Transaction (KYT) integration - Persona Help Center, accessed October 1, 2025, https://help.withpersona.com/articles/1WulTGsGvhnQkYenuHvR5X/
TRM Triage | Blockchain Intelligence for the Frontline - TRM Labs, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/blockchain-intelligence-platform/triage
Onchain Pulse - Merkle Science, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.merklescience.com/platform/onchain-pulse
TRM Wallet Screening | Protect Against High-Risk Wallets - TRM Labs, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.trmlabs.com/blockchain-intelligence-platform/wallet-screening
TRM Transaction Monitoring - The Wealth Mosaic, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.thewealthmosaic.com/vendors/trm-labs/trm-transaction-monitoring/
Elliptic AML API, accessed October 1, 2025, https://developers.elliptic.co/docs/getting-started
rogerthedeveloper/Chainalysis-API-REST-JS - GitHub, accessed October 1, 2025, https://github.com/rogerthedeveloper/Chainalysis-API-REST-JS
TRM Labs Sanction API, accessed October 1, 2025, https://docs.sanctions.trmlabs.com/
Chainalysis Screening API - Activepieces, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.activepieces.com/pieces/chainalysis-api
Automating Chainalysis Workflows: How To Integrate Chainalysis KYT With AuthsignaI To Mitigate Crypto Crime And Streamline Operations - Authsignal, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.authsignal.com/blog/articles/automating-chainalysis-workflows-how-to-integrate-chainalysis-kyt-with-authsignai-to-mitigate-crypto-crime-and-streamline-operations
Audits Involving Cryptoassets - PCAOB, accessed October 1, 2025, https://pcaobus.org/Documents/Audits-Involving-Cryptoassets-Spotlight.pdf
Crypto auditing: A guide to reporting and compliance - Thomson Reuters, accessed October 1, 2025, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/crypto-auditing-a-guide-to-reporting-and-compliance/
Paginate all analyses - Elliptic AML API, accessed October 1, 2025, https://developers.elliptic.co/reference/getallanalyses
Integrating third-party AML providers - Fireblocks Developer Portal, accessed October 1, 2025, https://developers.fireblocks.com/docs/integrating-third-party-aml-providers
Auditing Blockchain & Digital Assets | AICPA & CIMA, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/blockchain-and-digital-assets
Digital assets under IFRS® Accounting Standards vs US GAAP: the basics, accessed October 1, 2025, https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2024/digital-assets-under-ifrs-accounting-standards.html
A guide to auditing digital assets using different accounting standards - HLB International, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.hlb.global/a-guide-to-auditing-digital-assets-under-ifrs-accounting-standards-versus-us-gaap/
Cryptocurrency Transaction Monitoring: Regulations, and Best Practices - FOCAL, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.getfocal.ai/blog/cryptocurrency-transaction-monitoring
Introduction to Cryptocurrency Exchange Compliance - Chainalysis, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/introduction-to-cryptocurrency-exchange-compliance-crypto-businesses-2024/
Crypto Compliance | Elliptic, accessed October 1, 2025, https://www.elliptic.co/solutions/crypto-compliance