ChainPatrol company primary sources — 2026-08-08

Scope

Primary-source capture supporting the taxonomy split from projects/chainpatrol to companies/chainpatrol.

Sources captured

1. https://chainpatrol.com/
2. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/external-api/overview
3. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/concepts/blocklist
4. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/concepts/brands
5. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/concepts/reviews
6. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/concepts/takedowns
7. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/general/false-positives
8. https://chainpatrol.com/docs/llms.txt

Why the company/entity split is warranted

The strongest current first-party read is not ChainPatrol as a neutral protocol, but ChainPatrol as a named operator running a phishing-response and threat-distribution workflow.

Homepage

• Frames ChainPatrol as a brand-protection platform for phishing, fake domains, impersonation, and social-engineering threats.
• Says it blocks malicious sites across 20+ browsers and crypto wallets and files takedowns to remove threats at the source.
• Markets the service around 24/7 monitoring plus AI-and-human operations rather than immutable protocol mechanics.

API overview

• Says ChainPatrol works with wallets, security apps, and marketplaces to block scam links, contract addresses, and wallet addresses before user interaction.
• Exposes asset checks, blocklist sync, dispute creation, webhooks, detection-config management, metrics, and queue snapshots.
• That is strong evidence that the durable control surface is a company-run policy and workflow API, not only a website or sales-led service.

Blocklist docs

• Describes the blocklist as a continuously updated threat-intelligence database.
• Explicitly frames the operating model as blocklist-first, takedown-second.
• Says ChainPatrol participates in bidirectional threat-intelligence sharing with Crypto-ISAC.
• Documents prefix-based sync and broad downstream distribution, which makes publication and freshness policy part of the real authority boundary.

Brands docs

• Says organizations define brand terms, brand images, legitimate assets, and legal documents inside the platform.
• That means ChainPatrol is not only classifying threats; it is also curating the reference identity corpus used to decide what counts as impersonation.
• This is a strong signal that the company boundary matters separately from any one feed or dashboard surface.

Reviews and false-positive docs

• Reviews docs describe a full proposal-and-review system with staff, trusted reporters, customer admins, automation, escalation, and revert windows.
• False-positive docs explicitly say an asset only ends up as Blocked after review by a human on ChainPatrol’s team or by a human at one of its scanning partners.
• Those materials make review policy, human override, and dispute handling part of the real control surface rather than implementation detail.

Takedowns docs

• Says ChainPatrol maintains direct contacts with provider security and trust-and-safety teams plus some API integrations for accelerated takedowns.
• Describes legal-document handling, provider-specific submission workflow, follow-up, and retraction management.
• This reinforces that removal speed and operational reach depend on the named company boundary, not on a detached protocol.

Taxonomy conclusion

ChainPatrol is better kept in companies/ because the useful control-surface questions are:

• who defines the protected brand and legitimate-asset corpus,
• who runs the detection and review queue,
• who decides what becomes blocked or allowed,
• who distributes those judgments into partner products,
• and who handles disputes, retractions, and takedowns when the judgment is wrong or incomplete.

That makes projects/chainpatrol best treated as an alias pointing to the company note.