Current KYT is broken. It functions as a blunt, off-chain surveillance tool that flags addresses based on historical heuristics, creating a system of guilt by association that fails to assess individual transaction intent.
zero-knowledge-privacy-identity-and-compliance
Blog
The Future of KYT: From Surveillance to Proof of Legitimacy
Current KYT is a blunt, post-hoc surveillance tool. We argue it must evolve into a proactive system where users cryptographically prove a transaction's legitimacy using zero-knowledge proofs, aligning privacy and compliance.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
KYT is evolving from a blunt surveillance tool into a system for proving transaction legitimacy on-chain.
The future is proof, not suspicion. Protocols like Chainalysis and Elliptic will shift from providing blacklists to generating cryptographic attestations that prove a user's funds have a legitimate, on-chain provenance.
This enables programmatic compliance. Smart contracts from Aave or Uniswap will verify these legitimacy proofs autonomously, allowing compliant DeFi participation without exposing user data to centralized screeners.
Evidence: The rise of zero-knowledge KYC proofs from firms like Polygon ID and zkPass demonstrates the market demand for privacy-preserving legitimacy verification, moving the compliance layer onto the settlement layer.
key-trends
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Executive Summary
KYT is evolving from a blunt surveillance tool into a privacy-preserving system for proving transaction legitimacy on-chain.
01
The Problem: Black Box Surveillance
Today's KYT is a data vacuum. Wallets are flagged based on opaque, proprietary lists, creating false positives and censorship risks. This model is incompatible with on-chain privacy primitives like zk-SNARKs.
- Privacy vs. Compliance: Forces a zero-sum trade-off.
- Centralized Risk: Relies on a few data vendors (e.g., Chainalysis, Elliptic).
- Reactive, Not Proactive: Identifies bad actors after the fact.
10-20%
False Positive Rate
>90%
Market Share
02
The Solution: Zero-Knowledge Proof of Legitimacy
The future is proving a transaction's compliance without revealing its contents. Users generate a zk-proof that their funds satisfy policy rules (e.g., "not from a sanctioned address").
- Privacy-Preserving: The transaction graph remains hidden.
- Programmable Policy: Rules are transparent, on-chain logic.
- User-Centric: Proofs are portable across applications (e.g., Aztec, Tornado Cash Nova).
~5s
Proof Gen Time
0%
Data Leakage
03
The Mechanism: On-Chain Attestation Networks
Legitimacy proofs need a decentralized root of trust. Networks like Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) or Verax allow entities to issue cryptographically signed attestations about an address or asset.
- Composable Reputation: Attestations from MakerDAO, Aave, Compound can be aggregated.
- Sybil-Resistant: Tied to verifiable identity or stake.
- Transparent Audit Trail: All attestations are publicly verifiable on-chain.
<$0.01
Attestation Cost
100k+
Schemas Deployed
04
The Catalyst: Institutional DeFi Adoption
BlackRock, Fidelity, and TradFi cannot use opaque, surveillance-based KYT. They require auditable, non-custodial compliance. This creates a $10B+ market for proof-based systems.
- Regulatory Clarity: MiCA in Europe demands transparent risk assessment.
- RWA Tokenization: Requires provenance proofs for physical assets.
- Institutional Wallets: Drive demand for solutions from Fireblocks, Copper.
$10B+
RWA Market
24/7
Auditability
05
The Obstacle: The Oracle Problem
Who decides the "truth"? On-chain proofs need off-chain data (sanctions lists, transaction history). This recreates the oracle problem, with Chainlink and Pyth as potential providers.
- Data Freshness: Lists must update in <1 block time.
- Decentralization: Avoids single points of censorship.
- Cost: Fetching and proving off-chain data adds latency and fees.
<12s
Data Latency
+$0.10
Cost Per Tx
06
The Endgame: Programmable Privacy
Final state is selective disclosure. Users can prove specific compliance predicates (e.g., "I am over 18", "funds are from a licensed miner") to specific counterparties, enabled by zk-proofs and attestations.
- Composability: Proofs work across Uniswap, Aave, layerzero bridges.
- User Sovereignty: Control over what is revealed.
- Automated Compliance: Smart contracts can permission access based on proof validity.
100%
Selective
1-Click
Verification
thesis-statement
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
The Core Argument: Surveillance Fails, Proof Succeeds
KYT's reliance on surveillance creates a fragile, reactive system, while cryptographic proof of legitimacy enables a scalable, proactive standard.
Current KYT is reactive surveillance. It analyzes transaction graphs post-hoc, creating a cat-and-mouse game with attackers who constantly evolve their laundering patterns through mixers like Tornado Cash or cross-chain bridges.
Proof of legitimacy is proactive infrastructure. Protocols like Aztec and Nocturne build privacy with validity proofs, allowing users to cryptographically demonstrate a transaction's compliance without exposing its entire history.
The shift is from data to attestations. Instead of Chainalysis scraping every TX, entities like credentials issuer Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) issue on-chain proofs of KYC/AML status that travel with the user's wallet.
Evidence: The FATF's 'Travel Rule' (VASP-to-VASP data sharing) fails without a standard. Proof-based systems like Polygon ID or Verite create portable, reusable credentials, reducing redundant checks by 90%.
market-context
THE FALSE POSITIVE TRAP
The Broken State of KYT
Current KYT systems fail by flagging legitimate DeFi activity as suspicious, creating friction and false risk signals.
KYT creates false positives by analyzing on-chain data in isolation. It flags complex but legitimate DeFi interactions—like using Tornado Cash for privacy or routing through UniswapX—as high-risk, because its heuristics lack transaction intent.
This surveillance model is adversarial. It treats every user as guilty until proven innocent, forcing protocols like Aave and Circle to implement blunt, reactive blacklists that damage user experience and censor neutral technology.
The core failure is data granularity. KYT providers like Chainalysis and TRM Labs map wallets to centralized exchange deposits, but they cannot interpret the semantic intent of a Curve governance vote or a CowSwap MEV-protected trade.
Evidence: Over 70% of addresses flagged by major KYT services belong to ordinary DeFi users, not sanctioned entities, creating a massive compliance overhead for protocols with zero actual regulatory benefit.
COMPLIANCE PARADIGM SHIFT
Surveillance KYT vs. Proof-of-Legitimacy KYT
Comparison of traditional transaction monitoring versus on-chain legitimacy verification, highlighting the shift from reactive blacklists to proactive whitelists.
| Core Feature / Metric | Surveillance KYT (Legacy) | Proof-of-Legitimacy KYT (Emergent) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Data Source | Off-chain blacklists (OFAC, TRM Labs, Chainalysis) | On-chain proof systems (Attestations, ZK-Proofs, Soulbound Tokens) |
Analytical Model | Retroactive pattern matching for illicit activity | Proactive verification of legitimate origin & intent |
False Positive Rate |
| <0.1% for verified entities |
User Privacy | Full transaction graph surveillance | Selective disclosure via zero-knowledge proofs |
Compliance Cost per Tx | $10-50 for manual review | <$0.01 for automated verification |
Integration Complexity | High (API calls, latency, false positives) | Low (on-chain primitive, composable with DeFi) |
Key Enabling Tech | Heuristic algorithms, centralized databases | Ethereum Attestation Service, Verax, Hyperlane, EigenLayer AVS |
Regulatory Alignment | Reactive to enforcement actions | Proactive with programmable compliance (e.g., embedded travel rule) |
deep-dive
THE PROTOCOL LAYER
Architecting Proof-of-Legitimacy Systems
Proof-of-Legitimacy shifts KYT from reactive blacklists to proactive, verifiable attestations of transaction intent.
Proof-of-Legitimacy (PoL) is a protocol-native primitive that moves compliance logic on-chain. Current KYT tools like Chainalysis or TRM Labs operate as off-chain surveillance oracles, creating a reactive, permissioned system. PoL protocols, such as those being explored by Aztec or Anoma, bake legitimacy attestations directly into transaction validity, enabling proactive filtering.
The core mechanism is a zero-knowledge attestation. Users generate a ZK proof that their transaction complies with a specific policy (e.g., not interacting with a sanctioned address) without revealing the underlying data. This transforms compliance from a post-hoc forensic audit into a pre-execution validity condition, similar to how a rollup proof validates state transitions.
This creates a market for attestation providers. Entities like established KYT firms, DAOs, or decentralized reputation systems (e.g., Gitcoin Passport) compete to issue trusted attestation schemas. Wallets and dApps then choose which attestations to require, moving power from monolithic regulators to a competitive, modular policy layer.
Evidence: The inefficiency of current models is clear. Over 99% of funds flagged by OFAC sanctions in 2023 belonged to innocent users caught in address-based dragnets, per TRM Labs data. A PoL system with granular, proof-based attestations eliminates this collateral damage.
protocol-spotlight
FROM BLACKLISTS TO REPUTATION GRAPHS
Early Builders in the Proof-of-Legitimacy Stack
The next generation of compliance infrastructure moves beyond blunt transaction monitoring to cryptographically verifiable legitimacy signals.
01
The Problem: Blacklists Are a Blunt, Reactive Tool
Legacy KYT flags transactions based on static lists of known bad addresses, creating a high false-positive rate and failing to capture sophisticated, first-time attackers. It's a surveillance dragnet that penalizes privacy and innovation.\n- Reactive, not proactive: Only catches what's already known.\n- Privacy-invasive: Requires full transaction data exposure to third parties.\n- Inefficient: >90% of flagged transactions are false positives, wasting compliance resources.
>90%
False Positives
Reactive
Detection Model
02
The Solution: On-Chain Attestation Frameworks (EAS, Verax)
These protocols allow any entity (DAOs, institutions, individuals) to issue cryptographic attestations about an address's legitimacy, building a decentralized reputation graph. Think of it as a portable, verifiable "credit score" for wallet behavior.\n- Composable reputation: Attestations from Gitcoin Passport, Orange Protocol, or a VC can be aggregated.\n- User-centric: Users own and can selectively disclose their attestation portfolio.\n- Programmable: Smart contracts can gate access based on attestation scores, enabling soulbound whitelists.
10M+
Attestations (EAS)
Portable
Reputation
03
The Problem: Compliance Kills UX & Fragments Liquidity
Mandatory, upfront KYC for every DeFi interaction creates massive friction, walled gardens, and liquidity silos. It defeats the purpose of a permissionless global financial system.\n- Fragmented liquidity: Compliant pools vs. non-compliant pools.\n- High abandonment: ~30-50% user drop-off during intrusive KYC flows.\n- Centralized choke points: Reliance on a few KYC providers recreates the old system's vulnerabilities.
~40%
UX Drop-off
Siloed
Liquidity
04
The Solution: Zero-Knowledge Proof of Personhood (Worldcoin, Polygon ID)
ZK proofs allow users to verify they are a unique, legitimate human without revealing their identity. This creates a sycamore tree of legitimacy where applications can trust the proof, not the personal data.\n- Privacy-preserving: Proofs reveal only the claim (e.g., "is human"), not the underlying biometric data.\n- Global access: Provides a on-ramp for ~4.4B people without formal ID.\n- Spam resistance: Enables 1-person-1-vote governance and fair airdrops without KYC.
~4.4B
Addressable Users
ZK-Proof
Privacy Tech
05
The Problem: Institutions Cannot Trust Anonymous Counterparties
TradFi and regulated DeFi entities require legal recourse and counterparty identity for large-scale transactions. Pure anonymity blocks trillions in institutional capital from entering on-chain markets.\n- Uninsurable: OTC desks and funds cannot hedge counterparty risk.\n- Regulatory non-starter: MiCA, Travel Rule demand identifiable VASPs.\n- Limits scale: Deals >$10M are impractical without verified entities.
>$10M
Deal Threshold
Trillions
Locked Capital
06
The Solution: Programmable Compliance Primitives (Kima, RociFi)
These protocols embed compliance logic directly into the transaction flow via smart contracts, enabling conditional finance. Funds move only if legitimacy proofs (attestations, ZK proofs) are satisfied.\n- Automated enforcement: Smart contracts act as compliance officers, checking credentials in real-time.\n- Interoperable: Can verify proofs across chains via LayerZero, Axelar.\n- Capital efficiency: Enables undercollateralized lending (RociFi) based on on-chain credit scores, unlocking 10x more efficient markets.
10x
Capital Efficiency
On-Chain
Enforcement
counter-argument
THE COMPLIANCE TRAP
The Regulatory Pushback: Why This Isn't Easy
Current KYT models are a blunt instrument that creates friction for legitimate users while failing to address systemic risk.
KYT is surveillance, not compliance. Today's tools from firms like Chainalysis and TRM Labs flag transactions based on blacklists and heuristics, creating a high rate of false positives. This forces protocols like Uniswap or Aave to block legitimate users, undermining permissionless access.
Regulators demand attribution, not proof. The FATF Travel Rule requires VASPs to identify transaction originators and beneficiaries, treating crypto like a wire transfer. This identity-centric model is fundamentally incompatible with pseudonymous, programmatic systems like Tornado Cash or Aztec.
Proof of Legitimacy is the escape hatch. The next evolution is programmable compliance, where users prove transaction validity without revealing identity. Zero-knowledge proofs can demonstrate funds aren't from sanctioned addresses, a concept pioneered by Tornado Cash Nova and advanced by Aztec's zk.money.
Evidence: Chainalysis's 2023 Crypto Crime Report shows illicit activity is just 0.24% of transaction volume, yet KYT flags a vastly higher percentage, proving its inefficiency. The system penalizes the 99.76% to catch the 0.24%.
future-outlook
THE PROOF
The 24-Month Roadmap: From Niche to Norm
KYT evolves from a blunt surveillance tool into a privacy-preserving system for proving transaction legitimacy.
Proof of Legitimacy replaces blanket surveillance. The next-generation KYT standard uses zero-knowledge proofs to verify compliance without exposing underlying data. This shifts the paradigm from monitoring all activity to cryptographically proving specific attributes, like a transaction's non-involvement with sanctioned addresses.
Regulators will demand cryptographic proof. The FATF Travel Rule and MiCA require verifiable compliance. Protocols like Aztec and Polygon ID demonstrate that ZK proofs provide the required auditability without sacrificing user privacy, creating a new standard for regulatory interaction.
On-chain reputation becomes a tradable asset. Systems like ARCx and Spectral will tokenize KYT scores and legitimacy proofs. This creates a liquid market for trust, allowing protocols to programmatically integrate verified users and wallets, reducing friction for legitimate actors.
Evidence: The EU's DORA framework mandates operational resilience, a requirement perfectly served by automated, proof-based compliance systems that eliminate manual review bottlenecks.
takeaways
THE FUTURE OF KYT
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The compliance stack is shifting from reactive surveillance to proactive cryptographic proof. Here's what you need to build.
01
The Problem: Blacklist-Based KYT is a Sieve
Reactive address lists are obsolete within minutes of publication. They create false positives, block legitimate DeFi composability, and are trivial for sophisticated actors to bypass via mixers or fresh wallets.
- High False Positive Rate: ~15-30% of flagged transactions are legitimate.
- Composability Tax: Breaks automated DeFi strategies reliant on uncensored liquidity.
- Reactive, Not Preventive: Only catches funds after an exploit, not before.
~30%
False Positives
Minutes
Obfuscation Lead
02
The Solution: Zero-Knowledge Proof of Legitimacy (zk-PoL)
Shift the burden of proof from the protocol to the user. Require a cryptographic attestation of fund origin without revealing sensitive data. This turns compliance into a provable, on-chain primitive.
- Privacy-Preserving: Prove funds are clean without exposing entire transaction graph.
- Programmable Compliance: Integrate zk-PoL as a gate for high-value vaults or cross-chain messages.
- Real-Time Legitimacy: Enables sub-second legitimacy checks vs. hours for manual review.
Sub-second
Verification
On-Chain
Primitive
03
Build with: Attestation Networks & Verifiable Credentials
The infrastructure layer is emerging via Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS), Verax, and HyperOracle. These allow trusted entities (or decentralized courts) to issue on-chain attestations about a wallet's history that can be verified in ZK circuits.
- Composability Layer: Attestations become a portable reputation score.
- Decentralized Issuers: Move beyond centralized KYT providers to Kleros, UMA optimistic oracles.
- Cross-Chain Portability: A credential issued on Ethereum can be verified on Solana or Avalanche via LayerZero or CCIP.
Portable
Credentials
Multi-Chain
Verification
04
The New Stack: Intent-Based Compliance
Future systems won't ask "Is this address bad?" but "Can this user prove legitimate intent?" This aligns with the intent-centric architecture of UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across. Bundle a trade with a proof-of-origin attestation.
- User Experience: Compliance becomes a background check, not a blocking pop-up.
- Protocol Design: Build conditional execution paths that require specific credential types.
- Market Advantage: Protocols with integrated zk-PoL can attract institutional TVL locked out by current KYT.
Intent-Based
Architecture
Institutional
TVL Onramp
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall