- Blockchain coverage claims vary widely depending on vendors’ definitions and the depth of their data integration.
- Full blockchain coverage requires end-to-end network integration, entity and behavioral intelligence, cross-chain continuity, and product-wide availability.
- Partial coverage or sanctions-only monitoring can create risks by leaving gaps in compliance and investigation efforts.
- Cross-chain tracing is critical, as many complex cases involve multiple blockchains linked by bridges and token transfers.
- Customers should assess vendors by verifying indexing depth, historical data access, cross-chain tracing capability, and product support consistency across blockchains.
Elliptic emphasizes that claims of blockchain coverage can be misleading without a clear, comprehensive definition. While some vendors list numerous blockchains with partial data or limited intelligence, full coverage requires stringent standards in data depth and operational functionality.
Complete blockchain coverage, according to Elliptic, consists of four main components. First, platforms must perform end-to-end network integration by indexing the entire historical ledger and maintaining real-time updates. This ensures the ability to assess both past and current activity on the blockchain.
Second, entity and behavioral intelligence must be applied. This involves labeling addresses and clusters with risk categories that integrate into a broader entity graph, providing essential context beyond raw transaction data.
The third component is cross-chain continuity. Platforms must trace transactions that move across blockchains through bridges, decentralized exchanges, coinswaps, or token transfers. This tracing happens programmatically, avoiding manual reconstruction and preventing loss of the transaction trail at chain boundaries.
Lastly, full blockchain coverage requires product-wide availability. Coverage must be present across all products in a provider’s suite—screening, monitoring, investigations, and API access—without significant limitations or workarounds.
These high standards address risks faced by financial institutions and regulators. Screening or investigating transactions with only partial blockchain data or limited entity intelligence leaves blind spots that sophisticated actors can exploit by moving funds across less-covered chains or through wrapped assets.
Cross-chain activity is significant in investigations. Analysis mentioned in the [state of cross-chain crime report] shows that a large percentage of complex cases involve three or more blockchains, with some spanning five or even ten chains. Missed links in coverage can break compliance trails entirely.
To evaluate blockchain analytics providers, clients should inquire about the completeness of data coverage on claimed blockchains, historical transaction indexing, demonstration of cross-chain tracing through multiple hops and bridges, and whether coverage extends across all product offerings.
Coverage is not about counting the number of blockchains but delivering comprehensive data, intelligence, and cross-chain tracing that meet operational and investigative needs. Elliptic claims it monitors sanctions across all blockchains and fully covers over 60 blockchains with these standards, underscoring the importance of depth and continuity in blockchain analytics.
✅ Follow BITNEWSBOT on Telegram, Facebook, LinkedIn, X.com, and Google News for instant updates.
Previous Articles:
- Caroline Ellison Moves to Halfway House After 11 Months in Prison
- Securitize to Launch First Compliant Onchain Public Stock Trading
- Monero Jobs Launches; XMR Price Hits $486 in 2025 Growth Surge
- Aave DAO Moves to Control Protocol Brand Assets Amid Clash
- Bitcoin, Ethereum ETFs See $500M Outflows as XRP Funds Top $1B
