3 ms·

Sorry but how on earth is this data supposed to be reliable when the underlying transactions are explicitly anonymous

• dopidopHN 4y ago
  They are pseudo-anonymous at best.
  • rco8786 4y ago
    On an individual basis maybe, but on a macro statistical scale there is no way you can classify transactions as illicit or not with any remote degree of accuracy.
    • JohnFen 4y ago
      Oh, what a good point. There are different kinds of anonymity, I think. There's anonymity of the identity of people, and anonymity of the nature of the transaction. Most cryptocurrency is bad at the former and good at the latter.
      • rco8786 4y ago
        Like heck, tradfi banks can't even do this and they have oodles of regulations and KYC laws and fraud/money laundering prevention mechanisms.
    • dopidopHN 4y ago
      What about “normal” financial illegal trades? Like wash trade and layered trade ? Those are detectable by analyzing the order book of exchanges for instance. No identity is needed
• partiallypro 4y ago
  Not only that, but speculative trading volume isn't the same as a normal transaction like buying a pizza. You can't count that in the numbers, but these numbers don't seem to indicate they are eliminating that noise. They do explicitly say they don't include ponzi schemes that have collapsed as "elicit."