We reviewed TrustSniffer’s internal prediction ledger and matched 18 wallet candidates with later confirmations across 12 recorded freeze events. For each candidate, we measured the interval between the ledger entry and confirmation.
What the available evidence establishes
As of 2026-07-27, TrustSniffer’s internal prediction ledger included 18 wallet candidates that were later confirmed as frozen across 12 recorded freeze events. Our first-party analysis is limited to confirmed outcomes in the ledger and does not cover the full population of screened wallets. [claim_22ab39a87d097e56; ev_2fbae4109e98b02f]
In the supplied confirmed-outcomes dataset, every candidate was entered before the corresponding freeze was confirmed. The evidence does not identify the signals behind candidate selection, describe the confirmation process, or show how many recorded candidates were not followed by a freeze. The wallet-risk checker can support screening, but its results are risk signals rather than guaranteed outcomes.
How to interpret the evidence
For the confirmed outcomes, the shortest recorded advance warning was 1428 seconds (23 minutes 48 seconds), while the longest was 3216 seconds (53 minutes 36 seconds). These endpoints come from the supplied confirmed-outcomes dataset. They do not establish a typical warning time or a future service level. [claim_3bd97f2b7ab493c1; ev_51896ee32dbafe6e]
The timing data establishes that the ledger entries came before the confirmed freezes represented in the dataset. It does not explain why each wallet was selected or show that every flagged wallet will be frozen. The sanctions directory offers separate research context for determining whether an address appears in that directory. Absence from either resource does not prove safety.
- Advance warning interval
- The elapsed time between a candidate entering the internal prediction ledger and the corresponding freeze being confirmed.
Practical implications for the reader
Within these limits, a wallet prediction should prompt closer review rather than determine a decision by itself. Record the address, network, screening time, and result so there is a baseline for comparison. Check that the address and network match the intended transaction, then seek corroboration suited to the reader’s risk context.
That review should keep an early signal separate from a confirmed outcome. Our dataset includes 18 later-confirmed candidates across 12 recorded freeze events, but it excludes unsuccessful candidates and does not describe selection or confirmation. It therefore cannot establish causation or support estimates of accuracy and coverage. For a consequential transfer, the user may choose to pause while assessing the remaining uncertainty under their own procedures.
Evidence-based decision guidance
The evidence supports a limited conclusion: as of 2026-07-27, our internal ledger recorded the 18 candidates before the confirmed freezes represented across 12 recorded events. It does not support a broader claim that TrustSniffer will predict any particular future freeze. The signal can help prioritize review, but decisions should also account for the exposure involved and whether the action is reversible.
Before acting, verify that the address and network were recorded correctly, confirm that the signal is current, and consider whether independent context changes the assessment. If the stakes exceed the reader’s tolerance for uncertainty, defer the transaction or use the applicable review process. This keeps the signal useful without assigning it more confidence than our evidence supports.
