useEffect.dev VS Sanctuary.cv

Sanctuary.cv's answer:

Sanctuary shows the limits of its own knowledge. Every check reports how many of the applicable intelligence sources actually responded, and when coverage is thin the report says "verify independently" instead of showing a green screen. "We found nothing" and "this is clean" are different statements, and most tools quietly merge them. On top of that, every result comes as evidence rather than a bare number: entity attribution, source list, confidence, exposure distance in hops, all inside a PDF signed with Ed25519 and verifiable through a public link by anyone, without an account.

Sanctuary.cv's answer:

Three reasons. Price and access: full sanctions screening against OFAC, EU, UN and UK HMT runs on every check including the free one, and paid plans start at $199 per month with no annual contract and no sales cycle. Defensibility: you get a signed report your counterparty, bank or exchange can verify, not a screenshot of a gauge. Reach: the same engine runs in the API, the web dashboard and the Telegram bot, so the compliance team, the developer and the trader on his phone all work from one source of truth instead of three different tools.

Sanctuary.cv's answer:

Operators who move other people's money and have to answer for it. Crypto exchangers screening deposits before crediting, OTC desks documenting counterparties, P2P traders checking a wallet before releasing funds, payment platforms and Web3 businesses screening incoming transactions through the API, and small compliance teams that need case management and an audit trail without an enterprise budget. The common profile is someone who must decide in 90 seconds and explain that decision six months later to a bank or a regulator.

Sanctuary.cv's answer:

The same scene kept repeating. Someone accepts a transfer, gets their exchange account frozen a week later, pays for a screening service and receives a screen with a number on it. Say 78. Then they ask what 78 means and get no answer: no sources, no distance to the problem, no share of funds, no date. A number you cannot argue with and cannot show to a compliance officer. So we started from the opposite end: first we defined the document that has to survive a dispute, then built the engine underneath it.

Sanctuary.cv's answer:

We do not publish client names. Our users deal with frozen accounts, fraud disputes and counterparty risk, and being named as an AML customer is not something most of them want made public. By segment:

• Crypto exchangers and swap services screening incoming deposits
• OTC desks running counterparty and source of funds checks
• P2P traders on major exchange platforms
• Crypto payment processors and merchant platforms
• Web3 and iGaming businesses screening deposits through the API
• Independent compliance officers and investigators