Mapping the exchanges, one tracer at a time
A unique native token deposited to an exchange behaves like a tagged banknote: it cannot commingle the way ada does, so it can be followed hop by hop from a deposit address into the exchange’s internal wallets. Each depositor reports which exchange they used; that self-report is the only off-chain input. For each cluster we publish the full tracer-label distribution, and the agreement among independent depositors, plus whether the address looks like exchange infrastructure, sets its confidence. How we keep the data honest →
A draft sketch of what the study will deliver, filled with invented data. No real exchange has been labelled yet; the layout, columns and label-distribution below are what the live map will show, populated from on-chain tracer walks once the study runs.
| Address | Role | Tracer labels | Depositors | Shape | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| addr1q9x7e3k…c9d0e | cold / at rest | 9× Alpha1× Beta | 10 | 842,133 · 5,120 fdr | high |
| addr1q8h2alp…9d0e1 | hot / consolidation | 6× Alpha | 6 | 210,044 · 1,830 fdr | high |
| addr1q7g3alp…0b1c2 | hot / consolidation | 4× Alpha | 4 | 98,011 · 940 fdr | high |
| addr1q6f4alp…1a2b3 | deposit address | 2× Alpha | 2 | 3 · 2 fdr | medium |
| Address | Role | Tracer labels | Depositors | Shape | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| addr1q5e9bet…3b2a1 | cold / at rest | 5× Beta | 5 | 412,900 · 3,110 fdr | medium |
| addr1q4d8bet…3f2e1 | hot / consolidation | 3× Beta | 3 | 77,002 · 610 fdr | medium |
| addr1q3c7bet…2c1b0 | deposit address | 2× Beta | 2 | 2 · 2 fdr | low |
| Address | Role | Tracer labels | Depositors | Shape | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| addr1q2b6gam…1b0a9 | hot / consolidation | 2× Gamma | 2 | 1,844 · 70 fdr | low |
| addr1q1a5gam…0a9z8 | deposit address | 1× Gamma | 1 | 1 · 1 fdr | low |
| # | Study wallet | Agreed nodes | Branches | Exchanges | Tracers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | addr1qxmapp…e1f2 | 41 | 14 | 5 | 50 |
| 2 | addr1qymapp…e2f3 | 38 | 12 | 4 | 50 |
| 3 | addr1qzmapp…f3g4 | 33 | 11 | 3 | 50 |
| 4 | addr1qwmapp…g4h5 | 27 | 9 | 3 | 50 |
| 5 | addr1qvmapp…h5j6 | 22 | 8 | 2 | 50 |
| 6 | addr1qumapp…j6k7 | 19 | 6 | 2 | 50 |
| 7 | addr1qtmapp…k7l8 | 14 | 5 | 2 | 50 |
| 8 | addr1qsmapp…l8m9 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 50 |
Only corroborated nodes score, so the board rewards mapping the wider set agrees on, not raw deposit volume or lone claims. Spreading a batch across deposit addresses and over time is how you climb it.
False or thin claims do not silently vanish; they stay visible and explained:
- addr1q0z4sme…4z3y2 claimed a major exchangeone report, on an address with no exchange shape (no sweep, a single funder) and no corroboration → withheld as a likely false attribution.
- addr1q9x7e3k…c9d0e claimed Exchange Betaone tracer claimed Beta on a cluster nine others labelled Alpha → outlier in the distribution, not published as Beta.
47example tracers walked. “Shape” is the address’s hub-degree (lifetime receives · distinct funders): a high count is the exchange-vs-closed-wallet signal. Every figure on this page is invented for illustration.
An exchange label is an inference from voluntary deposits, on-chain footprint only, not a confirmed entity. Reaching an address shows contact and sweep behaviour, not custody of any named party’s funds. What this proves, and what it doesn’t →