Risk breakdown
No record for this address
The intelligence service has no record for this subject.
This is an absence of analysis, not a finding about this wallet's risk. Nothing here says this address is safe.
Entity cluster
No record for this address
The intelligence service has no record for this subject.
This is an absence of analysis, not a finding about this wallet's connections. Nothing here says this address is safe.
Recent flagged activity
No record for this address
The intelligence service has no record for this subject.
This is an absence of analysis, not a finding about this wallet's transactions. Nothing here says this address is safe.
Counterparty reconstruction
A different upstream from everything above. These four measurements come from apps/intelligence-service/moat/, whose algorithms are real and whose chain history is reconstructed. The deposit clustering below is one specific heuristic and is not the same measurement as the engine's entity cluster — the two can disagree without either being wrong.
Sanctions overlay
This section did not perform a sanctions screen and its result carries no compliance value. What it shows is the mechanism: which reference list was loaded, whether this address appears on it, and how far the counterparty search reached. Point SCIENTER_SANCTIONS_LIST_PATH at a current list and connect a real chain-history source, and the identical code produces a screen.
- On the loaded list
- No entry for this address
- Nearest listed address
- None within 3 hops
- The reference list is a synthetic sample. This result is not a sanctions screen and carries no compliance value.
- The counterparty graph walked to compute hop distance is simulated. Any hop count below describes the simulation, not this address.
Historical replay
| Pair | Side | Size | Avg entry |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVAX | long | 2.8763 | 23.75 |
| BTC | long | 0.9955 | 72,399.87 |
Average-cost position accounting replayed over the fill stream. Realised PnL is net of fees. Unrealised PnL is null, not zero, for any frame holding a pair that could not be marked. Reconstructed from 50 fills between 2025-10-03 and 2026-01-01.
Ally / adversary graph
2 alongside, 2 against
- 0x915d67…fbbe0eTraded alongside+0.67535 observations31 aligned · 4 opposedAVAX, BTC2025-10-11 — 2025-12-30
- 0xe67306…e43291Traded against-0.50021 observations4 aligned · 17 opposedAVAX, BTC2025-10-13 — 2025-12-25
- 0x98c4a0…613313Traded alongside+0.43325 observations19 aligned · 6 opposedAVAX, BTC2025-10-03 — 2025-12-30
- 0x50d48f…3d5e4cTraded against-0.23325 observations9 aligned · 16 opposedBTC, AVAX2025-10-11 — 2025-12-30
- 0x346620…c5cd12No consistent side-0.09427 observations12 aligned · 15 opposedAVAX, BTC2025-10-03 — 2025-12-30
A high weight means two accounts were repeatedly on the same side of the same instrument at the same time. It is not evidence that they are related, coordinating, or aware of each other -- two accounts running the same public strategy look identical to this measurement.
Fills on the same instrument within a 2700s window are one observation, aligned if on the same side. Weight is (aligned - opposed) / (n + 5); the prior in the denominator is what stops a single coincidence from reading as a perfect relationship. A relationship needs at least 5 observations and a weight past ±0.20 before it is labelled at all.
CEX deposit clustering
2 addresses linked
- 0xe82fba…1bed74Exchange C100%3 funders9 transfers2025-10-04 — 2025-12-13
- 0x2b279308…df7e038f
- 0x915d67ed…91fbbe0e
- 0xe673065f…a5e43291
- 0x2a080b…253dedExchange C0%1 funder2 transfers2025-10-04 — 2025-10-10
Sole funder. Nothing is linked here — which is what most deposit addresses look like, and is worth showing rather than hiding.
Addresses that funded the same exchange deposit address are grouped. Confidence rises with transfers per member and falls sharply once the member count passes 4; past 12 members the group is reported but not treated as a linkage.
- Shared and omnibus deposit addresses merge unrelated customers.
- A deposit address recycled after an account closed merges two customers.
- A third party paying into someone's deposit address joins that cluster.
- The exchange label comes from an attribution set and can be wrong without affecting the clustering, which is keyed on the address.
Read this first
- Every section carries its own `reconstruction` block. When `is_simulated` is true the numbers in that section were generated from a hash of the address and describe no real activity.
- A null statistic means it could not be computed. Coalescing it to zero produces a wrong number with no visible symptom.
- `sanctions.is_screen` is the only field that authorises rendering the sanctions section as a compliance outcome. It is false whenever the reference list is a sample or the graph is simulated.
- The ally/adversary graph measures co-trading, not a relationship. Two accounts running the same public strategy are indistinguishable from two that coordinate.
- Deposit clustering is a heuristic with named false-positive modes, listed per cluster in `caveats`.
Analyse another wallet
Any EVM address, or any Solana address. The scorecard is public and needs no account — free lookups are rate limited per day, and a plan lifts the cap.
Looking for a Hyperliquid trader's performance record instead? /wallets scores the trading, not the conduct.
Scienter publishes evidence, not verdicts about people. Every factor above is shown with its source or marked as uncited, and an absent section means the check did not run. Nothing here is financial advice or an allegation of wrongdoing.