Conversation

. left to start . We chose not to develop this business internally, and we chose not to invest in analytics firms because I never wanted to have a conflict of interest with our clients. I didn't want to profit from selling out your financial privacy
31
135
877
That's the sad part. By not doing it themselves, they sell out their clients. Chain Analysis works by the company keeping track of who can ID which addresses, so there is a huge network effect. The more companies work with one of them, the more intel they have to sell to others.
1
1
2
Yeah, so if you were going to create a new service to compete with a neutral party like , how could you possibly have an edge over that? Why would an agency buy your service over theirs? Why even bother to sell your service for less than you pay your sales guy?
3
2
You need to have an edge to win contracts. Could be it's just way better pricing but on a vastly inferior product. Doesn't seem like the kind of trade law enforcement agencies would want to make. We don't disclose our vendor relationships. We've built a lot of tools over 9 years
1
Why do you need contracts? How is it not virtue-signaling for you to chastise your former employee while likely using his service and/or similar services just the same?
1
5
I haven't chastised any former employees. Subscribing to a service out of a legal obligation is not the same as developing and selling that service yourself. It makes much more sense for a neutral party to be selling this service than it does a full-KYC wallet/exchange.
1
4
How so? As Leo describes, removing yourself from the profit aspect doesn't actually protect users data better, it centralizes it allowing better triangulation and taint of the entire chain.
2
5
I know one aspect is Chainalysis and/or some similars, claim to segregate taint from end-user data or something. The claims get weird and people always stop talking or sidestepping when you ask certain things.
1
1
Show replies