Solidus Labs

The removal test leaves threshold alerts on price and volume, which is precisely what the company defines itself against. Detection operates on trader behaviour, order flow dynamics and execution patterns to identify manipulation at the behavioural level, correlating trading activity with trader profiles, onchain signals, funding flows and social sentiment, and the company frames the object of analysis as intent rather than data points. The platform is described as an agentic operating system with an orchestration layer running investigation workflows.

The platform is built around investigation rather than disposition. Alerts are prioritised and escalated into a case management system where compliance teams document, annotate and escalate with charting support, and market inspection lets an analyst reconstruct an order book from any timestamp to examine what actually happened. Automated escalation workflows and immutable audit trails are named. That construction keeps the judgement with the investigator while removing the search. What is absent is any description of thresholds, of what proportion of alerts require review, or of what closes automatically.

Verifiability is designed into the product rather than asserted about it. Order book reconstruction from any timestamp, with tracking of best bid and offer, mid price and spreads, and a multi venue viewer comparing a platform's own pairs against public market data, means a finding can be re examined against the market state that produced it, which is a stronger transparency property than a stated accuracy figure. Immutable audit trails support the same end.

The company also offers model calibration as a service to regulators, which implies method documentation exists. Held at B because no detection accuracy, false positive rate or validation result is published.

Named customers are current and consequential, spanning both of the largest prediction market venues, a futures commission merchant, a major institutional liquidity provider and a retail brokerage, with deployments in 2026 covering surveillance and anti money laundering. Independent reporting notes the consequence: one provider now has visibility across the two largest venues in prediction markets.

Standing extends beyond commerce, with appointment to a United States derivatives regulator's advisory committee and founding leadership of an industry market integrity coalition, and regulatory agencies are themselves clients for model calibration, investigative support and enforcement case assistance.

No boundary statement was located, and the architecture makes this the sharpest question the company faces. Cross venue manipulation detection requires cross venue data, and independent reporting has already observed that the same provider now sees trading patterns across the two largest venues in one market.

Nothing states whether detection models trained on one venue's order flow inform surveillance at a competitor, how customer data is segregated, or what a venue accepts about its own data when it adopts a platform whose value increases with the breadth of what it observes.

A data processing addendum is published alongside privacy and cookie policies, which is a concrete contractual artefact rather than an assurance and puts this ahead of most of the index, since it means the terms governing customer data handling can be read before engagement rather than negotiated blind.

Held at B because no retention schedule, subprocessor register or deletion commitment was located, and the platform holds trader identities linked to order history, onchain wallet activity and know your customer records, which is a combination that would ordinarily warrant explicit retention terms.

No attestation, certification, trust centre or enumerated framework was located. Regulated exchanges, a futures commission merchant and regulatory agencies are customers, which implies security review at a demanding standard has been passed repeatedly, and none of the resulting control documentation is published. For a platform ingesting complete order flow from trading venues, that data would be extraordinarily valuable if compromised.

The position here is unusual because the company sits inside the regulatory apparatus rather than merely complying with it. It holds an appointment to a United States derivatives regulator's advisory committee and founding leadership of an industry market integrity coalition, and it supplies regulatory agencies directly with model calibration, investigative support and enforcement case assistance, which means its methods are used to build cases rather than only to defend firms.

The platform is stated to be developed in accordance with major global regulatory mandates, with configurable monitoring frameworks aligned to different regimes and reporting designed to remain defensible in any jurisdiction.

No individual is assessed for credit and the adapted exposure runs to market participants. Behavioural surveillance infers intent from conduct, and a false positive means a trader is investigated, reported or restricted for activity that was legitimate, which for a market maker or an algorithmic firm carries real cost.

Detection tuned to patterns typical of sophisticated participants may also read unusual but lawful strategies as manipulation, particularly from smaller or non institutional traders whose behaviour departs from modelled norms. No analysis of alert accuracy by participant type, and no fairness or error distribution data, is published.

No guarantee, indemnity or correction process was located. The venue is well served, with audit trails and reconstruction letting it defend or revisit any finding. The trader is not addressed at all: someone whose activity is flagged as manipulative may face account restriction, reporting to a regulator or exclusion, and nothing describes whether they are informed of the basis, whether the behavioural inference is disclosed, or how a wrongly characterised strategy is contested.

Input categories are enumerated more fully than most, covering order book and market data by venue type, onchain activity, funding flows, know your customer records and social sentiment, and the company operates its own token screening tool.

What is absent is provenance: no data vendor, chain analytics provider, sentiment source or market data feed is named, and no model provider or subprocessor list appears, so a buyer cannot assess how coverage would change if any single upstream source were lost.

The normalisation layer is the substantive achievement, taking market data from centralised exchanges, decentralised venues, over the counter desks, derivatives platforms and traditional exchanges into a unified schema, which is what makes cross venue detection possible at all given that none of those sources shares a data format. On the monitoring side it links know your customer records with transaction flows across fiat and crypto rails to follow funds between systems. Public documentation exists. No named exchange, custody or case management system integration appears.

No hosting provider, region selection, residency commitment or private deployment option was located. The company states reporting is ready for any jurisdiction, which addresses regulatory format rather than where data sits, and for a platform holding order flow and identity data from regulated venues across multiple countries, residency is a distinct question that published material does not answer.

No pricing, packaging or basis of charge was located across surveillance, transaction monitoring, stablecoin monitoring and professional services. For surveillance sold to venues of wildly differing size, from a single stablecoin issuer to a global exchange, whether charge follows trading volume, monitored venues or alert throughput is the question that determines who can afford it.

Coverage spans venue types that rarely share a compliance vendor, including centralised and decentralised exchanges, over the counter desks, derivatives platforms, traditional exchanges, prediction markets, futures commission merchants, stablecoin issuers, banks and regulatory agencies themselves.

Asset coverage runs across digital assets, derivatives and equities from one platform, and the company describes crossing deliberately from crypto into traditional markets rather than the reverse. Functionally it reaches trade surveillance, transaction monitoring, know your customer intelligence, case management and enforcement support.