Method, written down so it can be argued with.
Analytical pieces on tracing method, attribution practice and the patterns we can evidence. Where a piece states a figure, it cites a source or labels itself an illustration.
What does ChainwatchCrypto research cover?
Research write-ups documenting investigative method so it can be examined and argued with: peel-chain reading, cross-chain bridge matching, token-approval drains, attribution decay, risk-score misuse, and the economics of recovery fraud. Each states where the technique stops being reliable, not only where it works.
Approval drains: the two minutes after the signature
What an ERC-20 approval actually authorises, why drains complete in under two minutes, and which part of the sequence is worth tracing when the transfer itself is already settled.
Reading a peel chain without over-reading it
Peel chains look conclusive and frequently are not. A method for distinguishing a genuine peel from ordinary change behaviour, and the confidence a peel finding actually deserves.
Matching a bridge transfer, or admitting you cannot
Cross-chain tracing succeeds or fails on whether the destination transaction can be matched. The matching criteria we use, and what we report when none of them hold.
Attribution decay: why an entity label ages badly
Service address sets change. An attribution that was correct eighteen months ago may now be wrong, and a platform that never revisits its labels quietly accumulates error.
The economics of recovery fraud
Why victims of digital-asset theft are targeted a second time, what the second approach usually looks like, and why the follow-on payment is often more traceable than the original loss.
When a risk score becomes a decision it was never meant to make
Analytical indicators are increasingly quoted as determinations. What goes wrong when a score is used as an answer rather than a prompt, and how model documentation limits the damage.