Blockchain tracing tools like Chainalysis Reactor help investigators untangle the financial networks behind illicit activity: fraud, theft, sanctions evasion, cybercrime, money laundering, and more. Guided by the right attributions, they can quickly determine which leads to follow and in many instances ultimately bring a case to trial.But tracing alone is not a golden ticket. If an attribution is incorrect, investigators may draw the wrong conclusions. Instead of supporting a case, an improperly attributed wallet segment can severely undermine an investigation or even lead to wrongful enforcement action. Because of these risks, it’s important that the attributions investigators seek to build their case upon are themselves backed up by strong methodology.U.S. courts have a framework for assessing whether proposed expert evidence is sufficiently reliable for presentation in court. This framework is known as the Daubert standard, and it helps judges distinguish inadmissible opinion from reliable and relevant evidence and expert testimony. Chainalysis was subjected to the Daubert standard in the 2024 case United States v. Sterlingov when a federal court considered a challenge to expert testimony based on Chainalysis Reactor. The court ruled in favor of its reliability.Chainalysis is the first and only blockchain analytics provider to successfully meet the Daubert standard.What is the Daubert Rule?The Daubert rule, usually called the Daubert standard, is the test U.S. courts use to decide whether expert testimony is reliable enough to put in front of a jury. It comes from the 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which asks the trial judge to act as a “gatekeeper” for expert evidence.Before that evidence can reach a jury, a court may hold a Daubert hearing, also called a Rule 702 hearing after Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The hearing exists to make sure expert testimony rests on sound, reliable foundations, scientific or otherwise, rather than opinion. This gatekeeping role replaced the older Frye standard (from Frye v. United States), which asked only whether a technique was generally accepted in its field.Under Daubert, a judge evaluates expert evidence against several criteria: