-
Cryptocurrencies
-
Exchanges
-
Media
All languages
Cryptocurrencies
Exchanges
Media
Share
As countries impose increasingly frequent sanctions on cryptocurrencies, regulatory technology (RegTech) is becoming the core infrastructure of Web3. However, current mainstream on-chain analysis tools (such as TRM, Chainalysis) are falling into an algorithm-driven "Over-compliance" frenzy when dealing with the "Entity-level designation" of sovereign states. This methodology of infinitely amplifying local sanctions into "ecosystem-level flagging" not only triggered a serious "False Flag Cascading", but also substantially caused large-scale financial deprivation to innocent users in non-sanctioned jurisdictions around the world (especially emerging markets). Recently, as a number of large global trading platforms, including HTX, have attracted great attention from the international market due to adjustments to geopolitical regulations, the boundary issue of this technical tool has once again been pushed to the forefront. This is not a crisis of a single platform, but a repeat of the "De-risking" disaster of traditional finance ten years ago.
Compliance and anti-money laundering (AML) are the only way for the cryptocurrency industry to mature, and the targeted sanctions of sovereign countries also have clear political basis. However, at the execution level, the market is being held hostage by the “Zero-Risk Bias” of the RegTech industry.
For blockchain data service providers, there is a serious structural imbalance in the business incentive mechanism: “It is better to kill ten thousand by mistake than let one go” is their safest business strategy. Producing “False Positives” (that is, misidentifying legitimate assets as contaminated assets) has no business cost for RegTech companies, but “False Negatives” may cause them to face regulatory liability or lose compliance customers. This asymmetric business logic prompted them to adopt the most radical correlation determination algorithm. This is no longer a precise strike, but a technological runaway driven by commercial fears.
This phenomenon is not unfamiliar to the traditional financial world. In the early 2010s, in order to avoid huge AML fines, global multinational banks launched a wave of indiscriminate "de-risking" in emerging markets, directly cutting off agent banking networks in the Caribbean, Africa and other regions.
Today’s on-chain “error flags” are exactly the 2.0 automated version of this historical disaster. According to the latest industry observation data, the recent sanctions initiated by a single country (such as the United Kingdom and the United States) have produced extremely unreasonable long-arm jurisdiction spillover effects:
Emerging markets bear the brunt: In cases where currency withdrawals on downstream platforms are blocked due to on-chain tagging, more than 90% of affected users are from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
Endless "pollution contagion": The transparency of the blockchain should be an advantage, but under the infinite traceability algorithm, the assets of legitimate users only have weak liquidity with the marked address in the "second layer (Hop 2)" or "third layer (Hop 3)". This approach has seriously deviated from the original intention of "precision sanctions" and has become a hidden financial hegemony.
Out of compliance and self-protection, downstream exchanges "accept all orders" of RegTech flags, which not only triggers the isolation of liquidity, but also pushes tens of millions of users into unregulated underground P2P networks.
At the same time, there are forces within the industry that are not without resistance to this disruption. Take HTX, which ranks among Forbes' TOP25 most reliable crypto exchanges in the world, as an example.Some leading platforms are trying to combat this algorithmic disaster through extreme transparency and internal governance. HTX recently released the "2026 Digital Asset Trends White Paper" and has long insisted on promoting 100% transparent proof of asset reserves (Proof of Reserves), trying to build an asset firewall for platform users from "error mark cascades" while complying with the compliance bottom lines of various countries. However, without unified RegTech accountability standards, single-platform efforts will still be unable to fully protect against systemic loss of control throughout the data supply chain.
Facing an increasingly complex geopolitical environment, the encryption industry cannot just passively adapt to black box algorithms. Just as industry leading institutions such as HTX actively advocate the in-depth integration of decentralized governance and compliance logic, systematically interpret the background of security, transparency and user interests first, calling on global digital financial organizations and policymakers to intervene and promote the establishment of "industry standards for blockchain analysis methodology":
Defining compliance boundaries (Hop-Limits): Develop industry-recognized “association level thresholds”. Clearly distinguish between "direct interaction (Direct Exposure)" and "secondary ecological association".
Establish a "Safe Harbor" and complaint mechanism: Give non-jurisdictional users and entities the right to challenge erroneous tags, and require data providers to provide substantive evidence or remove the tag within a limited time.
Introduce third-party audits: Tagging algorithms should be subject to regular audits by independent technical organizations to assess their proportion of "false positives."
Crypto’s vision is global financial inclusion. If algorithms without accountability are allowed to expand indefinitely, we will lose our neutral infrastructure. The industry must transform from a passive "compliance payer" to a "compliance standard setter."