Solidus Labs vs Coinfirm: Transaction Surveillance Systems

Streamlined for core compliance: Often positioned as a pragmatic, scalable solution for standard Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CTF) screening. Can be more cost-effective for businesses with high transaction volumes needing reliable, rule-based monitoring. This matters for crypto exchanges, payment processors, and custodians with well-defined risk profiles.

Specific advantage: Proprietary HALO AI engine for predictive risk scoring and cross-chain threat detection. This matters for exchanges and DeFi protocols needing to identify novel attack vectors (e.g., smart contract exploits, cross-chain money laundering) beyond simple address blacklisting.

Specific advantage: Built-in workflows for MiCA, FATF Travel Rule, and OFAC compliance. This matters for institutions and VASPs operating in multiple jurisdictions, as it reduces the manual lift for regulatory reporting and audit trails with tools like the Trade Surveillance Platform (TSP).

Specific advantage: Tracks over 5,000+ cryptocurrencies and tokens with one of the industry's largest proprietary risk databases. This matters for crypto-native businesses and custodians managing diverse asset portfolios who need consistent risk scoring across obscure altcoins and stablecoins.

Specific advantage: Deep focus on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-financing of terrorism (CFT) with over 270 granular risk indicators. This matters for traditional financial institutions and banks entering crypto, as it maps directly to legacy compliance frameworks and regulatory expectations.

Specific trade-off: Platform can be more complex and costly to implement due to its advanced AI features and regulatory modules. This may be overkill for a small startup or a project with a narrow, well-defined asset focus that doesn't require predictive analytics.

Specific trade-off: While excellent for traditional AML, it may have less native integration for real-time DeFi threat detection (e.g., flash loan attacks, governance exploits) compared to AI-driven platforms. This matters for protocols building complex smart contract systems that require surveillance at the transaction logic layer.

Global compliance coverage: Supports over 200 jurisdictions and 1,500+ risk categories, including specific FATF Travel Rule solutions. This matters for exchanges and custodians operating across multiple regions who need a single source for global AML/CFT rules.

Proprietary on-chain analytics: Leverages the AMLT Oracle and a database of over 100M blockchain addresses. This provides granular risk scoring (0-99) for VASPs and wallets, which is critical for institutional due diligence and counterparty risk assessment.

Specialized market abuse detection: Monitors for wash trading, spoofing, and pump-and-dumps across spot and derivatives markets with sub-second latency. This is essential for crypto-native exchanges and AMMs needing to meet MiCA and SEC-like market integrity standards.

Unified surveillance suite: Combines trade surveillance, AML transaction monitoring, and risk reporting in a single dashboard. This reduces operational overhead for large enterprises managing multiple compliance mandates (e.g., broker-dealers, multi-service fintechs).

Less emphasis on real-time trade surveillance: While strong for AML, its core is not optimized for detecting complex cross-market manipulation patterns in real-time. This can be a gap for trading venues where market abuse is a primary concern.

Potentially higher complexity/cost for pure AML: The platform's breadth can be overkill for a smaller fintech or wallet provider whose sole need is robust transaction screening and Travel Rule compliance without advanced trade surveillance features.