OpenFiat Risk Intelligence Protocol (ORIP)
The OpenFiat Risk Intelligence Protocol (ORIP) defines how fraud intelligence, wallet reputation, sanctions information, scam reports, blockchain analytics,…
Abstract
The OpenFiat Risk Intelligence Protocol (ORIP) defines how fraud intelligence, wallet reputation, sanctions information, scam reports, blockchain analytics, and financial crime indicators are shared throughout the OpenFiat ecosystem.
Unlike the Oracle Protocol, which provides informational data such as exchange rates and payment metadata, the Risk Intelligence Protocol provides security intelligence used to protect users and merchants from fraud.
The protocol is intentionally provider-neutral. Any qualified organization may operate a Risk Intelligence Provider by implementing the standard interfaces defined in this specification.
Risk Intelligence Providers assist marketplace participants in making informed decisions.
They do not replace user judgment, override protocol consensus, or automatically confiscate assets.
1. Introduction
A decentralized financial marketplace must remain open while protecting honest participants.
Threats include:
- Scam wallets
- Phishing operations
- Stolen funds
- Sanctioned addresses
- Money laundering
- Fraud rings
- Account takeovers
- Payment fraud
- Social engineering
- Terrorist financing
- Ransomware proceeds
No single organization can detect every threat.
OpenFiat therefore allows multiple independent Risk Intelligence Providers to publish security intelligence using a common protocol.
2. Scope
This specification defines:
- Risk Intelligence Providers
- Wallet intelligence
- Address risk scores
- Fraud reports
- Deposit screening
- Risk categories
- Provider registration
- Intelligence synchronization
- Risk event publication
This specification does not define:
- Reputation scoring
- Governance
- Dispute arbitration
- Law enforcement procedures
3. Design Goals
The Risk Intelligence Protocol SHALL:
- Improve marketplace safety.
- Support multiple providers.
- Preserve decentralization.
- Minimize false positives.
- Allow provider competition.
- Support transparent risk explanations.
- Remain extensible.
4. Design Philosophy
Risk intelligence is advisory.
It is not consensus.
A provider may report:
"This wallet has been associated with multiple phishing campaigns."
Applications may choose to:
- Reject deposits.
- Warn users.
- Require additional confirmation.
- Ignore the advisory.
The protocol intentionally leaves enforcement policies to applications and governance.
5. Risk Intelligence Providers
Any qualified organization may become a provider.
Examples include:
- Blockchain analytics companies
- Compliance providers
- Security companies
- Financial institutions
- Community fraud organizations
- Government-approved watchlist publishers
- Academic research groups
Providers register through OFS-1500.
6. Provider Categories
Examples include:
Blockchain Analytics
- Wallet clustering
- Transaction tracing
- Fund flow analysis
Fraud Intelligence
- Scam wallets
- Fake merchants
- Fraud rings
Compliance
- Sanctions
- AML indicators
- High-risk jurisdictions
Community Intelligence
- User reports
- Confirmed scams
- Phishing campaigns
Infrastructure Intelligence
- Malicious nodes
- Bot networks
- Spam infrastructure
7. Risk Record
Every published record contains:
- Risk Record ID
- Provider ID
- Wallet Address
- Risk Category
- Severity
- Confidence Score
- Supporting Evidence
- Timestamp
- Expiration (optional)
- Digital Signature
8. Risk Categories
The protocol initially defines:
Critical
- Stolen funds
- Sanctions
- Terrorist financing
- Ransomware
High
- Known scam wallet
- Confirmed phishing
- Fraud ring
- Money mule
Medium
- Suspicious behavior
- Repeated disputes
- High-risk transaction patterns
Low
- Newly created wallet
- Limited trading history
- Elevated but unconfirmed risk
Informational
- Watchlist
- Ongoing investigation
- Monitoring only
Governance may introduce additional categories.
9. Confidence Levels
Every report includes a confidence level.
Example:
Confidence represents the provider's assessment of the reliability of the reported intelligence.
Applications SHOULD consider both severity and confidence before taking action.
10. Evidence References
Providers SHOULD publish evidence whenever possible.
Examples include:
- Blockchain transaction references
- Public investigation reports
- Court records
- Sanctions publications
- Fraud reports
- Research publications
Sensitive evidence MAY remain private while exposing verifiable references or cryptographic proofs.
11. Wallet Screening
Applications SHOULD screen wallet addresses before accepting deposits.
Typical workflow:
Wallet screening SHOULD occur before escrow creation whenever practical.
12. Deposit Rejection
Applications MAY automatically reject deposits from wallets matching governance-defined rejection policies.
Examples include:
- Confirmed stolen funds
- Active sanctions
- Known phishing wallets
- Confirmed scam wallets
Applications SHOULD clearly communicate why a deposit was rejected whenever legally appropriate.
13. Multiple Provider Consensus
Applications SHOULD consult multiple providers.
Example:
Reliance on multiple providers reduces single-provider failure risk.
14. Risk Updates
Risk intelligence changes over time.
Examples:
- Wallet cleared
- Investigation completed
- Sanctions removed
- Scam confirmed
- False positive corrected
Updated intelligence creates new signed records.
Historical records remain available for audit purposes.
15. False Positives
No provider is infallible.
Applications SHOULD provide mechanisms for:
- Provider corrections
- Appeals
- Additional evidence
- Re-screening
Incorrect classifications SHOULD be corrected as rapidly as possible.
16. Community Reporting
Future protocol versions MAY permit community-submitted reports.
Such reports SHOULD:
- Be cryptographically signed.
- Require supporting evidence.
- Undergo provider review before publication.
- Never immediately create critical classifications.
17. Privacy
Providers SHOULD minimize personal data collection.
Risk records SHOULD focus on:
- Wallet addresses
- Cryptographic identifiers
- Blockchain evidence
Personally identifiable information SHOULD only be included where legally required and properly protected.
18. Synchronization
Risk intelligence updates generate signed protocol events.
Nodes synchronize updates using OFS-1200.
Applications eventually converge on identical intelligence datasets from the providers they trust.
19. Security Considerations
Implementations MUST protect against:
- Forged risk reports
- Provider impersonation
- Replay attacks
- Tampered intelligence
- Duplicate reports
- Unauthorized provider registration
Every intelligence record MUST be digitally signed.
20. Performance Considerations
Risk screening should add minimal latency to trading.
Implementations SHOULD optimize:
- Cached intelligence
- Incremental updates
- Fast address lookups
- Parallel provider queries
- Efficient signature verification
The reference implementation SHOULD maintain indexed risk datasets within RocksDB for high-performance local lookups.
21. Conformance
A compliant implementation MUST:
- Support multiple Risk Intelligence Providers.
- Verify provider signatures.
- Support wallet screening.
- Support signed intelligence records.
- Preserve historical intelligence.
- Support provider registration.
- Reject malformed intelligence records.
- Synchronize intelligence updates.
22. Relationship to Other Specifications
The Risk Intelligence Protocol provides a security layer across the entire OpenFiat ecosystem.
23. Example Providers
The protocol is provider-neutral.
Potential providers include:
- CipherOwl
- Chainalysis
- TRM Labs
- Elliptic
- Community-operated intelligence providers
- National sanctions list publishers
- Future OpenFiat-certified security providers
Listing an organization within this specification does not imply endorsement or mandatory usage.
24. Future Extensions
Future versions of the protocol may support:
- Real-time fraud streaming
- Cross-chain risk intelligence
- AI-assisted fraud detection
- Device reputation
- Payment account reputation
- Merchant fraud analytics
- Decentralized fraud intelligence marketplaces
- Zero-knowledge risk attestations
- Machine-readable investigation reports
25. Summary
The OpenFiat Risk Intelligence Protocol establishes a standardized, decentralized framework for sharing security intelligence throughout the OpenFiat ecosystem.
By separating risk intelligence from protocol consensus, OpenFiat preserves its permissionless nature while giving applications powerful tools to identify scams, screen wallet addresses, reject deposits from high-risk wallets, and protect users from evolving financial threats.
The protocol encourages competition among independent intelligence providers, minimizes reliance on any single source of truth, and enables marketplaces to adopt security policies appropriate for their users and jurisdictions.
The Risk Intelligence Protocol answers one fundamental question:
"How can a decentralized financial network share actionable fraud intelligence without sacrificing openness, interoperability, or user sovereignty?"