When the KYT tool becomes a "zombie system": what you think is Compliance is actually a trap.

Author: Aiying AML Peter

Original link:

Statement: This article is a reprint. Readers can obtain more information through the original link. If the author has any objections to the form of reprint, please contact us, and we will make changes according to the author's request. Reprinting is for information sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice, nor does it represent Wu's opinions and positions.

Insiders all know that there are two types of compliance: one is for the regulators to see, and the other is genuinely effective. The former is called "Compliance Theater" (Compliance Theater), while the latter is true risk management with real weapons. Sadly, the vast majority of institutions, especially those financial technology companies racing on the trend, are unconsciously performing the former.

What is the essence of the "compliance theater"? It is a carefully constructed stage to cope with inspections, obtain licenses, and appease investors. On this stage, the correctness of processes outweighs everything, and the beauty of reports is far more important than the rate of risk identification. The actors ( compliance officers ) recite the scripts that have long been written ( compliance manuals ), manipulating the splendid props ( expensive systems ), showcasing a scene of peace and prosperity to the audience ( regulatory agencies ). As long as the play is performed well, the license is obtained, and the financing is in place, everyone is happy.

In this grand drama, the most glamorous, most expensive, and most deceptive props are those "zombie systems" that seem to run 24/7, but in reality, have long since lost their soul and are essentially non-existent. Especially the KYT ( Know Your Transaction system, which should be the sharpest scout on the front lines of anti-money laundering ) AML (, often falls first, turning into a zombie that only consumes budgets and provides a false sense of security. It quietly lies in the server, with green lights flashing, reports being generated, and everything appears normal—until a real bomb explodes right beneath its nose.

This is the biggest compliance trap. You think you have purchased the top-notch equipment and built an impregnable defense, but in reality, you are just feeding a zombie with money and resources. It will not protect you; it will only cause you to die without a trace when disaster strikes.

So, the question arises: why do the KYT tools that we invest heavily in and expend manpower to procure sometimes become mere shells of their former selves? Behind this, is it a fatal mistake in technology selection, a complete breakdown in process management, or an inevitable result of both?

Today, we turn our attention to the most popular stage in the "compliance theater" of the fintech and payment industry, especially in the Southeast Asian market where the regulatory environment is complex and ever-changing, and business growth is like a runaway horse. Here, real performances are being staged, and what we need to do is lift the curtain and see the truth behind the scenes.

Act One: Analyzing the Zombie System - How Your KYT Tool "Died"?

The birth of a "zombie system" is not something that happens overnight. It does not suddenly die due to a groundbreaking vulnerability or a catastrophic outage, but rather, like boiling a frog in warm water, it gradually loses its ability to perceive, analyze, and react in the day-to-day "normal operation," ultimately becoming just an empty shell that maintains vital signs. We can dissect this process from both technical and procedural dimensions to see how a originally fully functional KYT system gradually moves towards "death."

Technical "brain death": Single point of failure and data islands

Technology is the brain of the KYT system. When the neural connections of the brain break, information input is obstructed, and the analysis model becomes rigid, the system enters a state of "brain death." It is still processing data but has lost the ability to understand and make judgments.

Cognitive Blind Spot of a Single Tool: Seeing the World with One Eye

Over-reliance on a single KYT tool is the primary and most common reason for system failures. This is almost common knowledge within the industry, but in the script of the "compliance theater," this point is often selectively ignored in pursuit of so-called "authority" and "simplified management."

Why is it said that relying on a single tool is fatal? Because no single tool can cover all risks. It's like having a sentinel watching for enemies in all directions at once; there will always be blind spots in their field of vision. Recently, a research report published by the licensed digital asset service provider MetaComp in Singapore revealed this harsh reality using test data. The study analyzed over 7,000 real transactions and found that relying on just one or two KYT tools for screening could result in as much as 25% of high-risk transactions being mistakenly allowed to proceed. This means that a quarter of the risks are being directly ignored. This is no longer a blind spot; it's a black hole.

Data source: MetaComp Research - Comparative Analysis of On-Chain KYT for AML&CFT, July 2025. The chart shows that when the risk threshold is set to "medium-high risk", the false negative rate of a single tool can reach as high as 24.55%, the combination of two tools can reach a maximum of 22.60%, while the combination of three tools drops sharply to 0.10%. This enormous risk exposure arises from the inherent flaws in the KYT tool ecosystem. Each tool is built on its own proprietary dataset and intelligence gathering strategy, leading to natural differences and blind spots in the following areas:

· The diversity of data sources

Some tools may have close ties with U.S. law enforcement, providing stronger coverage for risk addresses involving the North American region; others may focus on the Asian market, offering more timely intelligence on localized scam networks. No single tool can be the intelligence king for all regions globally.

· Different emphasis on types of risks

Some tools excel at tracking addresses related to OFAC sanctions lists, while others are better at identifying mixing services )Mixers( or darknet )Darknet( markets. If the tool you choose is not good at identifying the main risk types your business faces, then it is essentially useless.

·Update delays and intelligence lags

The lifecycle of a black market address can be very short. A risk address marked by one tool today may take another tool several days or even weeks to synchronize. This time lag in intelligence is enough for money launderers to complete several rounds of operations.

Therefore, when an institution puts all its hope on a single KYT tool, it is essentially gambling - betting that all the risks it encounters are exactly within the "cognitive scope" of this tool.

The "malnutrition" caused by data silos: without a source of water, how can it flow?

If a single tool is narrow-minded, then data silos are a complete "malnutrition." The KYT system has never been an isolated system; its effectiveness is based on a comprehensive understanding of counterparties and trading behaviors. It needs to continuously obtain "data nutrients" from multiple sources, such as the KYC) Know Your Customer( system, customer risk rating systems, business systems, and so on. When these data channels are blocked, or the quality of the data itself is poor, KYT becomes a source-less water, losing its judgment benchmark.

In many rapidly growing payment companies, this scenario is not uncommon:

The KYC team is responsible for customer onboarding, and their data is stored in System A; the risk control team is responsible for transaction monitoring, and their data is in System B; the compliance team is responsible for AML reports, and they use System C. The three systems belong to different departments and are provided by different vendors, with almost no real-time data interaction between them. As a result, when the KYT system analyzes a real-time transaction, the customer risk rating it relies on may still be the static information entered by the KYC team three months ago. This customer may have exhibited various high-risk behaviors during these three months, but this information is trapped in the risk control team's System B, and the KYT system is unaware of it.

The direct consequence of this "malnutrition" is that the KYT system cannot establish an accurate customer behavior baseline ) Behavioral Baseline (. One of the core capabilities of an effective KYT system is to identify "anomalies"—that is, transactions that deviate from normal customer behavior patterns. But if the system does not even know what a customer's "normal" is, how can it talk about identifying "anomalies"? Ultimately, it can only degrade to relying on the most primitive and crude static rules, producing a large number of worthless "garbage alerts", getting closer to being a "zombie".

The "Carving a Boat to Seek a Sword" of Static Rules: Using Old Maps to Find New Continents

Criminals' methods are evolving rapidly, from the traditional "smurfing" ) to cross-chain money laundering using DeFi protocols, and then to conducting false transactions through NFT markets, their complexity and concealment are growing exponentially. However, many "zombie KYT systems" still have rule sets that are stuck at levels from several years ago, akin to using an old nautical chart to search for new lands, destined to achieve nothing.

Static rules, such as "an alert for a single transaction exceeding $10,000," are hardly worth mentioning to today's black market practitioners. They can easily use automated scripts to split a large sum of money into hundreds or thousands of small transactions, perfectly circumventing such simple thresholds. The real threat lies in complex behavioral patterns:

· A newly registered account engages in small, high-frequency transactions with a large number of unrelated counterparties within a short period.

· After the rapid influx of funds, they are immediately dispersed through multiple addresses without any pause, forming a typical "Peel Chain" (.

· The trading path involves high-risk mixing services, unregistered exchanges, or addresses in sanctioned regions.

These complex patterns cannot be effectively described and captured by static rules. What they need are machine learning models that can understand transaction networks, analyze funding links, and learn risk characteristics from massive amounts of data. A healthy KYT system should have rules and models that are dynamic and self-evolving. In contrast, a "zombie system" loses this capability; once its rule set is established, it rarely gets updated, ultimately being left far behind in the arms race against illicit activities and becoming completely "brain-dead."

"Heartbeat Stop" at the process level: from "One-time Solution" to "Alarm Fatigue"

If technical defects lead to the "brain death" of a system, then the collapse of process management directly results in "heart stop". Even if a system is technically advanced, without the correct processes to drive and respond, it is just a pile of expensive code. In the "compliance theater", failures in processes are often more hidden and more lethal than failures in technology.

The illusion of "victory upon launch": treating the wedding as the end of love.

Many companies, especially startups, hold a "project-based" mindset towards compliance building. They believe that the procurement and launch of the KYT system is a project with a clear starting and ending point. Once the system is successfully launched and passes regulatory acceptance, this project is declared a victorious end. This is the most typical illusion of the "compliance theater"—mistaking the wedding for the end of love, thinking that from then on, they can rest easy.

However, the lifecycle of a KYT system begins with its launch, which is just the first day. It is not a tool that can be a "one-time solution," but rather a "living entity" that requires continuous care and optimization. This includes:

· Continuous parameter calibration: The market is changing, customer behavior is changing, and money laundering methods are changing. The monitoring thresholds and risk parameters of the KYT system must be adjusted accordingly. A $10,000 alert threshold that was reasonable a year ago may be meaningless after a tenfold increase in business volume.

· Regular rule optimization: As new risks emerge, it is necessary to continuously develop and deploy new monitoring rules. At the same time, it is important to periodically assess the effectiveness of old rules and eliminate those "junk rules" that only produce false positives.

· Necessary model retraining: For systems using machine learning models, it is essential to regularly retrain the model with the latest data to ensure its ability to identify new risk patterns and prevent model decay )Model Decay (.

When an organization falls into the illusion of "going live equals success," these crucial follow-up maintenance tasks are often neglected. No one is responsible, there is no budget support, and the KYT system is like a sports car abandoned in a garage; no matter how good the engine is, it will only slowly rust away, eventually turning into a pile of scrap metal.

"Alarm fatigue" crushes compliance officers: the last straw

A misconfigured and poorly maintained "zombie system" has the most direct and disastrous consequence of generating massive false alerts )False Positives(. Industry observations indicate that in many financial institutions, over 95% or even more than 99% of the alerts generated by the KYT system are ultimately verified as false positives. This is not just an issue of inefficiency; it can trigger a deeper crisis—"alert fatigue" )Alert Fatigue(.

We can imagine the daily routine of a compliance officer:

Every morning, he opens the case management system and sees hundreds of pending alerts. He clicks on the first one, and after half an hour of investigation, he finds it to be a normal business activity of the client, and closes it. The second one is the same. The third one is still the same... Day after day, he is overwhelmed by an endless sea of false alarms. The initial vigilance and seriousness are gradually replaced by numbness and indifference. He begins to look for "shortcuts" to quickly close the alerts, and his trust in the system drops to freezing point. Eventually, when a genuinely high-risk alert appears among them, he might just glance at it, habitually mark it as a "false alarm," and then close it.

"Alert fatigue" is the last straw that breaks the compliance defense line. It psychologically destroys the combat effectiveness of the compliance team, turning them from risk "hunters" into alert "cleaners." The entire compliance department's energy is consumed in an ineffective struggle with a "zombie system," while the real criminals swagger across the defense line, shielded by the clamor of alerts.

At this point, a KYT system has completely "stopped beating" in its process. It continues to generate alarms, but these "heartbeats" have lost their meaning, no one responds, and no one believes. It has completely turned into a zombie.

A friend of mine had a company that staged a classic "compliance theater" to obtain a license and please investors: they publicly announced the purchase of top-notch KYT tools and used it as a promotional asset for "committing to the highest compliance standards." However, to save costs, they only bought services from one supplier. The management's logic was, "We used the best, so don’t blame me if something goes wrong." They conveniently forgot that any single tool has its blind spots.

Additionally, the compliance team is understaffed and lacks technical knowledge, so they can only use the basic static rule templates provided by the vendor. Monitoring large transactions and filtering a few publicly available blacklisted addresses is considered completing the task.

The most critical issue is that once the business scales up, system alerts come in like snowflakes. Junior analysts quickly discover that over 95% are false positives. To meet their KPIs, their work shifts from "investigating risks" to "closing alerts." Over time, no one takes the alerts seriously anymore.

The professional money laundering gang quickly caught the scent of rotting flesh. They used the simplest yet most effective methods to turn this "zombie system" into their own ATM: by employing the "Smurfing" tactic of breaking down funds from illegal gambling into thousands of small transactions below the monitoring threshold, disguising them as e-commerce returns. In the end, it wasn't their team members who triggered the alarm, but the bank they collaborated with. When the regulatory agency's investigation letter landed on the CEO's desk, they were still in a daze, and it was reported later that their license was revoked. Figure 2: Comparison of Risk Levels Across Different Blockchain Networks Data Source: MetaComp Research - Comparative Analysis of On-Chain KYT for AML&CFT, July 2025. The chart shows that in the sampled data, the proportion of transactions on the Tron chain rated as "serious," "high," or "medium-high" risk is significantly higher than that on the Ethereum chain.

The stories around us serve as a mirror, reflecting the shadows of countless fintech companies currently performing in the "compliance theater." They may not have fallen yet, simply because they have been lucky enough not to have been targeted by professional criminal organizations. But ultimately, it is only a matter of time.

Act Two: From "Zombie" to "Sentinel" - How to Wake Up Your Compliance System?

After revealing the pathology of the "zombie system" and witnessing the tragedy of the "compliance theater," we cannot simply remain in criticism and lamentation. As front-line practitioners, what we care more about is: how to break the deadlock? How to revive a dying "zombie" and turn it into a true capable and defensive "frontline sentinel"?

The answer does not lie in purchasing a more expensive and more "authoritative" single tool, but rather in a complete transformation from concepts to tactics. This methodology has long been an unspoken secret among the truly practical practitioners in the industry. MetaComp's research has systematically quantified and made it public for the first time, providing us with a clear and actionable operations manual.

Core Solution: Say Goodbye to Solo Acts and Embrace a "Multi-Layer Defense System"

First, it is essential to completely abandon the theatrical mindset of "just buying a tool and it's done" at the root of thought. True compliance is not a solo performance, but a positional battle that requires the construction of a deep defense system. You cannot expect a single sentinel to block thousands of troops; what you need is a three-dimensional defense network composed of sentinels, patrols, radar stations, and intelligence centers.

Tactical Core: Multi-Tool Combination Punch

The tactical core of this defense system is the "multi-tool combination punch." The blind spots of a single tool are inevitable, but the blind spots of multiple tools are complementary. Through cross-validation, we can minimize the hiding space of risks to the greatest extent.

So, the question arises, how many tools are really needed? Two? Four? Or is more better?

MetaComp's research provides a crucial answer: the combination of three tools is the golden rule for achieving the best balance between effectiveness, cost, and efficiency.

We can understand this "three-piece set" in a simple way:

The first tool is your "frontline sentinel": it may have the broadest coverage and can detect most conventional risks.

· The second tool is your "special patrol team": it may have unique reconnaissance capabilities in a specific area (such as DeFi risks, specific regional intelligence) that can detect hidden threats that the "sentinels" cannot see.

The third tool is your "back-end intelligence analyst": it may possess the most powerful data correlation analysis capabilities, able to connect the scattered clues discovered by the first two and outline a complete risk profile.

When these three work together, their power is far from merely additive. Data shows that upgrading from dual tools to triple tools results in a qualitative leap in compliance effectiveness. MetaComp's report indicates that a well-designed three-tool screening model can reduce the "false clean rate" of high-risk transactions to below 0.10%. This means that 99.9% of known high-risk transactions will be captured. This is what we refer to as "capable compliance."

In comparison, upgrading from three tools to four tools, while further reducing the false negative rate, results in very marginal benefits, while the associated costs and time delays are significant. Research shows that the screening time for four tools can be as long as 11 seconds, whereas three tools can control it to around 2 seconds. In payment scenarios that require real-time decision-making, this 9-second difference could be a matter of life and death for user experience. Figure 3: Trade-off between Effectiveness and Efficiency of KYT Tool Combinations Data Source: MetaComp Research - Comparative Analysis of On-Chain KYT for AML&CFT, July 2025. The chart visually demonstrates the impact of increasing the number of tools on reducing the "false negative rate" ) effectiveness ( and increasing the "processing time" ) efficiency (, clearly indicating that the combination of three tools is the most cost-effective choice.

Methodology Implementation: Establish Your Own "Rules Engine"

Choosing the right "three-piece set" combination only completes the equipment upgrade. The more critical aspect is how to command this multi-unit force to work together. You cannot let the three tools operate independently; you need to establish a unified command center—your own "rules engine," independent of any single tool.

Step 1: Standardization of Risk Classification - Speaking the Same Language

You cannot be led by the nose by tools. Different tools may use different labels such as "Coin Mixer", "Protocol Privacy", and "Shield" to describe the same risk. If your compliance officer needs to remember the "dialects" of each tool, it would be a disaster. The correct approach is to establish a unified and clear risk classification standard internally, and then map the risk labels of all integrated tools to your own standard system.

For example, you can establish a standardized classification as follows: Table 1: Example of Risk Category Mapping In this way, regardless of which new tool you integrate, you can quickly "translate" it into an internally unified language, enabling cross-platform horizontal comparisons and unified decision-making.

Step 2: Unify risk parameters and thresholds - define clear red lines

With a unified language, the next step is to establish unified "rules of engagement." You need to set clear, quantifiable risk thresholds based on your own risk appetite )Risk Appetite( and regulatory requirements. This is a key step in transforming subjective "risk appetite" into objective, machine-executable instructions.

This set of rules should not merely be simple monetary thresholds, but rather a more complex, multidimensional combination of parameters, such as:

Severity Level Definition: Clearly define which risk categories fall under "Severe" ) such as sanctions, terrorist financing (, which fall under "High Risk" ) such as theft, dark web (, and which fall under "Acceptable" ) such as exchanges, DeFi (.

Transaction-Level Taint Threshold )Transaction-Level Taint %(: This defines the percentage of funds in a transaction that indirectly comes from high-risk sources, at which point an alert needs to be triggered. This threshold needs to be scientifically established through extensive data analysis, rather than being decided on a whim.

Cumulative Risk Threshold at the Wallet Level ) Cumulative Taint % (: Defines the percentage of transactions a wallet has with high-risk addresses throughout its entire transaction history at which it needs to be marked as a high-risk wallet. This can effectively identify "veteran" addresses that have long been involved in gray market transactions.

These thresholds are the "red lines" you set for the compliance system. Once reached, the system must respond according to the predetermined script. This makes the entire compliance decision-making process transparent, consistent, and defensible )Defensible(.

Step 3: Design a multi-layer screening workflow - a three-dimensional strike from point to surface.

Finally, you need to integrate the standardized classifications and unified parameters into an automated multi-layer screening workflow. This process should function like a precise funnel, filtering through layers, gradually focusing on achieving accurate risk targeting while avoiding excessive interference with a large number of low-risk transactions.

An effective workflow should at least include the following steps: Figure 4: An example of an effective multi-layer screening workflow (adapted from the MetaComp KYT methodology)

1. Preliminary Screening ) Initial Screening (: All transaction hashes and counterparty addresses are initially scanned in parallel using the "three-piece set" tools. If any one of the tools raises an alarm, the transaction moves on to the next stage.

2. Direct Exposure Assessment ): The system determines whether the alert is for "direct exposure", meaning that the counterparty address itself is a flagged "severe" or "high-risk" address. If so, this is classified as a top-priority alert and should immediately trigger a freeze or manual review process.

3. Transaction-Level Exposure Analysis(：If there is no direct exposure, the system begins the "funding traceability" to analyze what proportion of the funds in this transaction)Taint %( can be indirectly traced back to the risk source. If this proportion exceeds the preset "transaction-level threshold," it moves to the next step.

4. Wallet-Level Exposure Analysis): For cases where the transaction-level risk exceeds the threshold, the system will conduct a "comprehensive examination" of the counterparty's wallet, analyzing the overall risk status of its historical transactions(Cumulative Taint %). If the wallet's "health" is also below the preset "wallet-level threshold," the transaction will ultimately be confirmed as high risk.

5. Final Decision ( Decision Outcome ): Based on the final risk rating (Severe, High, Medium-High, Medium-Low, Low), the system automatically or prompts manual execution of corresponding actions: Release, Intercept, Return, or Report.

The brilliance of this process lies in its transformation of risk identification from a simple "yes/no" judgment into a three-dimensional assessment process that evolves from points (individual transactions) to lines (capital links) and then to surfaces (wallet profiles). It effectively distinguishes between the severe risks that are "direct hits" and the potential risks that are "indirectly contaminated," thus achieving optimized resource allocation—rapid response to the highest risk transactions, in-depth analysis of medium risk transactions, and quick clearance of the vast majority of low-risk transactions, perfectly resolving the conflict between "alert fatigue" and "user experience."

Final Chapter: Tear Down the Stage and Return to the Battlefield

We spent a long time dissecting the pathology of the "zombie system," reviewing the tragedy of the "compliance theater," and discussing the "battle manual" for awakening the system. Now, it is time to return to the starting point.

The greatest danger of the "compliance theater" is not the budget and manpower it consumes, but the deadly and false sense of "security" it brings. It leads decision-makers to mistakenly believe that risks have been controlled, while executors become numb in their day-to-day ineffective work. A silent "zombie system" is far more dangerous than a system that does not exist at all, because it can lead you into danger when you are completely unprepared.

In today's era where black market technology and financial innovation are iterating simultaneously, relying on a single tool for KYT monitoring is akin to running naked on a battlefield filled with gunfire. Criminals have access to an unprecedented arsenal—automated scripts, cross-chain bridges, privacy coins, DeFi mixing protocols. If your defense system is still at the level it was a few years ago, it is only a matter of time before it gets breached.

Real compliance has never been a performance to please the audience or to pass inspections. It is a tough battle, a protracted war that requires sophisticated equipment (a combination of multi-layer tools), tight tactics (a unified risk methodology), and excellent soldiers (a professional compliance team). It does not require a glamorous stage and hypocritical applause; what it needs is a respect for risk, honesty about data, and a continuous refinement of processes.

Therefore, I call on all practitioners in this industry, especially those with resources and decision-making power: please give up the fantasy of a "silver bullet" solution. There is no magical tool in the world that can solve all problems once and for all. The construction of a compliance system has no end; it is a dynamic process that requires continuous iteration and improvement based on data feedback. The defense system you establish today may have new vulnerabilities tomorrow, and the only way to respond is to remain vigilant, continue learning, and keep evolving.

It is time to dismantle the false stage of the "compliance theater." Let's return to that challenging yet opportunity-filled battlefield, armed with the truly effective "sentinel system." Because only there can we truly safeguard the value we wish to create.

Report link:

Reference material ( Know-Your-Transaction )KYT( | New Standard in Crypto Compliance

) Understanding AML Tactics: Know Your Transaction (KYT) - Vespia

( A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Know Your Transaction ...

) 1 in 4 Risky Transactions May Be Missed - MetaComp Study Finds ...

( MetaComp Study Finds Limited KYT Tools Insufficient for Blockchain ...