The on-chain analysis firm Chainalysis recently raised questions about the data interpretation of a leading exchange. The exchange previously claimed that the proportion of illegal funds on its platform was as low as 0.018%-0.023%, and emphasized in a blog post on November 19 that this trap analysis was conducted by itself using Chainalysis's tools.

However, Chainalysis responded that this ratio only accounts for the "direct exposure" portion. Significant amounts like ransomware payments and stolen coins by hackers, as well as indirectly laundered funds that have flowed back in through "jump wallets," are not included in the statistics at all. In other words, this conclusion is not very complete.

Behind this controversy is actually a difference in statistical standards. How do we define direct inflows and indirect inflows? What are the boundaries of on-chain fund tracking? The industry has clearly not reached a consensus on the definition of "clean data."