For banks and financial institutions
Challenges to address
A banking evaluation can start with a specific decision and the information needed to inform it. Define the relevant business activity, the reviewer, and the context that must accompany any blockchain information. This page is a framework for that conversation, not a statement that FinTrace Intelligence has institutional clients, approved integrations, or a particular regulatory status.
- I
Defining the information requirement
Different teams may need different context for the same relationship. Specify the question before deciding which blockchain information would be useful.
- Reviewing blockchain exposure connected to a customer
- II
Understanding a reference
A label or relationship needs an explanation of what it represents. Ask which sources and limitations a reviewer would need to see alongside it.
- Investigating an unfamiliar counterparty
- Supporting a financial-crime review
- III
Keeping a decision understandable
A later reviewer may need to understand the original question and the reasoning behind a conclusion. Define the record your institution expects to keep.
- Preserving evidence for a later internal review
- Escalating uncertain information
These are illustrative scenarios to frame a discussion. They do not describe an automated compliance decision.
A controlled review workspace
An illustrative bank review workspace
A review brings the purpose, the evidence, the entity context, the exposure, the notes, the approvals, and the full history together, so a reviewer never has to reconstruct the record from separate systems.
Corporate customer · counterparty exposure
- Review purpose
- Understand exposure connected to a corporate customer’s counterparty
- Scope
- One customer relationship, one address, sample period
- Customer or counterparty reference
- CUST-40217 (example)
- Status
- In review
Coverage, source freshness, and attribution confidence are not established for this evaluation. Treat all figures as illustrative.
- Wallet screening reportSource Oct 21
- Entity reference (third-party label set)Source Sep 12
- Analyst note on counterparty patternInterpretation Oct 22
Source coverageWhich sources are available for this evaluation is confirmed with the product team.
- Entity reference
- Exchange (example)
- Category
- Centralised exchange (example)
- Confidence
- Medium
- Jurisdiction
- To verify
A label is a sourced reference, not a statement of legal ownership. It is one input to a reviewer’s judgement.
- Direct exposure
- 0.0% (example)
- Indirect exposure
- 4.2% (example)
- Network
- Ethereum (example)
- Hops examined
- 2 (example)
Exposure describes a connection, not intent or ownership. It is a prompt for review, not a conclusion.
Counterparty pattern is consistent with routine business activity but has not been corroborated with a second source.
Request a second source before this can move to approval.
- Financial-crime analystClosed
- Compliance reviewerIn review
- Senior approverDraft
- Review createdOct 21 · 09:14
- Evidence attachedOct 21 · 10:12
- Assigned to compliance reviewerOct 22 · 09:00
- Second source requestedOct 23 · 09:40
Illustrative demo data with a fictional customer and reference. No live data is shown or stored on this website.
Product topics
Relevant capabilities to evaluate
These product topics are relevant to the discussion. Follow each link for evaluation questions and the scope still requiring verification; a link does not confirm an available integration.
- Address or counterparty reference
- Entity and wallet context
- Human evaluation
- Documented reasoning
- Reviewable report
- Attribution context
Entity Intelligence
Discuss source context and attribution boundaries for entity references relevant to your evaluation.
Explore Entity Intelligence - Address review
Wallet Screening
Explore the evidence and review context needed for a defined address question without assuming automatic assessment or network coverage.
Explore Wallet Screening - The record
Reports & Audit Trails
Discuss how findings, limitations, and decision history would need to be presented to your internal reviewers.
Explore Reports & Audit Trails
A demo outline
An illustrative review workflow
Use this outline to explain your process during a demo. It describes human evaluation steps, not confirmed software automation.
- 1
Define the business question
State what the institution needs to know and why.
- 2
Establish scope and authority
Confirm who is authorized to request and use this review.
- 3
Collect relevant blockchain context
Gather the addresses, entities, and sources in scope.
- 4
Review sources and limitations
Read what each source supports, and what it does not.
- 5
Escalate uncertain findings
Route unresolved or conflicting evidence to a senior reviewer.
- 6
Obtain approval
A senior approver signs off before the record is closed.
- 7
Preserve the decision record
The rationale and history are kept for later review.
Illustrative seven-step governance sequence with sample roles and timestamps.
- Keep in view · 01
Define a bounded review
Choose one business question and the team responsible for answering it. Use sample information that is approved for the evaluation.
- Keep in view · 02
Examine the information in context
Ask the product team to demonstrate available output and explain sources, dates, interpretation, and gaps.
- Keep in view · 03
Review the fit with your process
Compare the demonstration with your institution’s governance, access, and record requirements. Document remaining questions before deciding next steps.
Separation of duties
Roles and responsibilities
A review moves between people with different access and authority. This grid illustrates how a financial-crime analyst, a compliance reviewer, a senior approver, an internal auditor, and a system administrator might separate viewing, commenting, approving, exporting, and administration.
| Role | View | Comment | Approve | Export | Administer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial-crime analystGathers evidence and drafts the initial review. | Allowed | Allowed | No access | Limited | No access |
| Compliance reviewerReads the evidence and recommends an outcome. | Allowed | Allowed | Limited | Allowed | No access |
| Senior approverApproves or returns the review for more evidence. | Allowed | Limited | Allowed | Limited | No access |
| Internal auditorReads the completed record and its history. | Allowed | No access | No access | Allowed | No access |
| System administratorManages access and system configuration. | Limited | No access | No access | No access | Allowed |
- Allowed
- Limited, for example by review type
- No access
To confirm. These roles and permission levels are an illustration. The exact roles, access boundaries, and separation of duties your institution requires are confirmed during evaluation.
Evidence and limitations
Distinguishing what is known from what is concluded
A useful record keeps these five layers visibly apart, from what a source states to what your institution ultimately decides.
What a source states, as received.
e.g. a public disclosure
A label supported by more than one signal.
e.g. clustering plus a disclosure
What a person concludes from the evidence.
e.g. a pattern assessment
What is not yet corroborated or is missing.
e.g. a single low-quality source
What your institution decides, by whom.
Recorded by a person, not software
The principle behind every layer. Blockchain intelligence is designed to support human review. It does not replace institutional judgement, and no layer above is a substitute for your own compliance and legal assessment.
Technical evaluation
Deployment and data-handling discussion
Institutional deployments raise questions that a marketing page cannot answer. Bring these to your technical evaluation.
- Ask · 01
Cloud deployment
Which cloud deployment options exist, and under what terms?
- Ask · 02
On-premises deployment
Can the product be run within your own infrastructure?
- Ask · 03
Air-gapped environments
Is an air-gapped or disconnected deployment possible?
- Ask · 04
Data location
Where would your data be processed and stored?
- Ask · 05
Access controls
How is access authenticated, scoped, and reviewed?
- Ask · 06
Audit logging
What is logged for each action, and who can read it?
- Ask · 07
Retention
How long is data and evidence retained, and can that be configured?
- Ask · 08
API integration
How would a review connect to your existing systems?
No deployment or data-handling option is presented as available above. Each is an evaluation requirement to confirm with the product team.
Evaluation objectives
Potential benefits to validate
These are intended outcomes for your evaluation, not measured product results. Compare any available demonstration with your own requirements before drawing a conclusion.
A clearer evaluation brief
The target is a shared understanding of the question and the evidence required, rather than a general list of desired features.
Better visibility of limitations
Assess whether reviewers can understand what a proposed output does and does not support.
A more understandable record
Validate whether the information could help the next authorized reviewer follow the reasoning. No audit or regulatory acceptance is promised.
Product verification
Scope and evidence still needed
[Placeholder: confirmed institutional use cases, data sources, network coverage, access controls, hosting and retention, integration options, and approved security documentation.]
- Ask · 01
Approved institutional use cases
Which use cases has your institution approved for evaluation?
- Ask · 02
Data and evidence sources
Which sources support a finding, and how are they documented?
- Ask · 03
Network and asset coverage
Which networks and assets can be reviewed?
- Ask · 04
Attribution methodology
How is an entity reference produced, and how is confidence set?
- Ask · 05
Access and governance controls
Who can view, comment, approve, and administer a review?
- Ask · 06
Hosting and data handling
Where is data hosted, and under what terms?
- Ask · 07
Retention and export options
How long are records kept, and in what export formats?
- Ask · 08
Integration requirements
How would this connect to your existing case and compliance systems?
- Ask · 09
Regulatory interpretation
Which regulatory questions require your own specialist review?
- Ask · 10
Procurement and security review
What security and procurement documentation is available?
These are questions for a demo and technical evaluation, not confirmed capabilities.
Before your demo
Questions from Banks and Financial Institutions
Is FinTrace Intelligence used by banks?
No banking customers or endorsements are claimed here. [Placeholder: authorized customer references, if available.]
Does the product satisfy our regulatory requirements?
No regulatory outcome is promised. Define your requirements with the responsible specialists and ask the product team for evidence relevant to that evaluation.
Can we review hosting and data-handling information?
Request the available security and data-handling documentation. [Placeholder: verified hosting, access, retention, and assurance details.]
Start a conversation
Discuss your institution’s review requirements
Tell us how a review is opened, approved, and preserved in your institution today.