New crypto firms now start with far stricter compliance settings than most older platforms used just five years ago, according to a new report by blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis. However, the report also reveals a persistent weak spot: the monitoring of indirect exposure to illicit funds.
Nearly 47% of organizations onboarded in 2026 now use alerting standards that would have ranked in the top 10% for strictness in 2020. Chainalysis measured alert severity, trigger sensitivity, and minimum dollar floors for indirect illicit exposure. "Standard compliance configurations today would have been considered industry‑leading just five years ago," the firm noted.
The report draws a sharp distinction between direct exposure—funds coming straight from a known illicit source—and indirect exposure, where funds pass through intermediary wallets. Direct monitoring has become more uniform across regions, but indirect thresholds can be 10 to 20 times higher than direct ones for ransomware, fraud shops, scams, darknet markets, and sanctioned jurisdictions.
Crypto exchanges also lag behind traditional banks in alerting thresholds. For indirect exposure to non‑illicit flows, exchanges set an average minimum alert at $950 compared with $150 for financial institutions. Even for illicit flows, banks run tighter: $55 versus $100 on exchanges.
The findings come as compliance pressure mounts across crypto markets. Polymarket tapped Chainalysis in April to monitor insider trading, while North Korean‑linked hackers stole over $2 billion in crypto in 2025, underscoring the urgency for stronger fund‑flow monitoring. Chainalysis concludes that while direct exposure is now handled professionally, the industry has yet to treat indirect risk with the same rigor.
