Chainalysis has introduced a proposed ontology for blockchain analysis designed to establish standardized practices that investigators and prosecutors can rely on when using blockchain data in legal proceedings. The framework seeks to define how blockchain analysis tools should operate to ensure that the evidence they produce is consistent, transparent, and scientifically reliable. The proposal primarily focuses on creating standardized methods for identifying wallet clusters and assessing whether multiple cryptocurrency addresses are likely controlled by the same entity.
According to Jacob Illum, Chief Scientist at Chainalysis, the initiative was developed to answer a practical question regarding the capabilities required for blockchain analysis tools to effectively support investigations. He explained that his responsibility is to determine what conclusions are genuinely supported by blockchain data and to help investigators understand the full extent of insights that the available evidence can provide without exceeding what the data justifies.
Past Court Proceedings Helped Shape the Proposal
The company indicated that its experience participating in the U.S. Department of Justice’s prosecution of Roman Sterlingov, the co-founder of the cryptocurrency mixing service Bitcoin Fog, played a significant role in developing the proposed framework. During the legal proceedings, Judge Randolph Moss conducted a Daubert hearing to determine whether Chainalysis’ Reactor blockchain analysis platform met the standards required for expert evidence in court.
Following that evaluation, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the government’s position that the Reactor software demonstrated a high degree of reliability. Chainalysis considers that judicial assessment an important reference point in defending the scientific foundation and credibility of its blockchain analysis methodology.
Framework Separates Data Relationships From Confidence Levels
The proposed ontology begins with the concept of wallet clusters, while acknowledging that the term does not have a universally accepted definition across the blockchain industry. To improve consistency, the framework introduces a two-layer analytical model that first maps the structural relationships among blockchain addresses and then evaluates the confidence level associated with those relationships.
The company believes this structured approach could help investigators distinguish between observable blockchain connections and the certainty with which those connections can be interpreted, thereby improving the quality and transparency of blockchain-based investigations.
Not all blockchain analysis products are created equal.
Today we're launching something we believe the industry urgently needs: a formal ontology for blockchain address analysis and intelligence claims.
Here's why it matters 🧵 pic.twitter.com/Ag4AMkvGEQ
— Chainalysis (@chainalysis) June 29, 2026
Blockchain Analysis Does Not Reveal User Identity
Illum emphasized that blockchain analysis tools have inherent limitations and cannot independently identify the individual behind a cryptocurrency wallet. He explained that while Chainalysis technology can trace digital assets to cryptocurrency exchanges or organizations that manage wallets on behalf of customers, identifying the actual account holder requires additional legal procedures.
He noted that investigators would still need to obtain court orders or other legal authorizations to request customer information from exchanges or custodial service providers. According to Illum, tracing the movement of funds and determining the real-world identity of a wallet owner represent two entirely separate investigative processes.
Industry Discussion Encouraged
Chainalysis stated that the proposal has been published to encourage broader discussion within the cryptocurrency industry regarding standardized blockchain investigation methodologies. Although the company has not yet initiated a formal public consultation process, it has already held preliminary discussions with law enforcement organizations.
Illum also stressed the importance of maintaining independent examination of blockchain analysis methods. He suggested that avoiding external scrutiny of investigative methodologies should be viewed as a warning sign, emphasizing that transparent evaluation is essential for strengthening confidence in blockchain forensic tools and ensuring that their findings remain credible in both investigative and judicial settings.
