Trust &
Transparency
Real-time metrics on threat detection, model accuracy, and data source health. No login required.
Transparency Center
XemaS is built to show what it knows, what it does not, and how confident it is in every conclusion.
Most security tools return a single label. XemaS reports the evidence behind a result, the coverage it was able to gather, and the certainty that coverage supports. The sections below explain how we reason about uncertainty. The live dashboard further down shows the current evidence.
Coverage states
How we label what we gathered
Every signal carries a coverage state, so a result is never read as more complete than it is.
Observed directly from on-chain data or a verified source. This is the strongest evidence tier and the only one that supports a full-confidence conclusion.
Derived from related signals when a direct read is unavailable. It is treated with lower confidence and is always labelled as inferred rather than presented as measured fact.
The signal was not gathered for this asset or chain. A blank here means we did not look, not that the underlying risk is absent.
We separate "confirmed absent" (we checked and it is not present) from "unknown" (we could not determine it). A zero is never reported without saying which of the two it is.
Verdict certainty
How coverage shapes the conclusion
A verdict inherits the certainty of its coverage. We never return a low, none, or safe verdict on partial coverage. Missing evidence reduces confidence; it does not become reassurance.
Core signals were measured across the asset. The verdict is presented with full confidence.
Some core signals were missing or only inferred. The verdict is presented with reduced confidence and never as "safe".
Key data could not be read, for example an unresolved proxy implementation. Confidence is capped and the limitation is stated on the result itself.
Signal vs conclusion
A signal is an observation, not a verdict
We separate what we observed from what it lets us conclude. These are some of the distinctions applied on every result.
What XemaS can and cannot see
Honest scope matters more than a confident-looking score. We are explicit about the limits of on-chain analysis.
- +Verified source code and raw bytecode
- +Governance and administrative permissions
- +Holder and supply distribution
- +Liquidity ownership and lock status
- +Known exploit and scam patterns
- +Smart-money and entity activity
- +On-chain transaction history
- -Private or off-chain agreements
- -Off-chain operational controls
- -Future governance decisions
- -Undisclosed multisig signers
- -Upgrade contracts not yet deployed
- -Off-chain team behaviour and social-engineering risk
Confidence is not the same as risk
Confidence and risk are separate axes. A low-risk asset can carry low confidence when data is missing, and a high-risk asset can carry high confidence when the evidence is clear. We report both, so a result is never mistaken for more or less certainty than it actually has.
Data provenance
Where our evidence comes from
We describe sources by category and evidence tier rather than by vendor. The live dashboard below shows the active sources and how recently each was seen.
How the analysis pipeline works
The eight-stage pipeline, behavioural features, and scoring reference behind every result.
Live evidence
The doctrine above, measured below
The metrics that follow are live platform data and refresh automatically.