Travel-rule-ready screening at crypto speed.

BriteBase is built for travel-rule obligations, applying originator and beneficiary screening as part of the transaction flow itself, rather than as a separate compliance step a VASP has to bolt on after a transfer has already been initiated. Travel-rule obligations specifically require identifying information about both parties to a virtual asset transfer to be exchanged between the originating and beneficiary institutions, which adds a screening and data-sharing step that traditional payment screening was not originally designed around. Building this into the core transaction flow, rather than treating it as an add-on, is what allows originator and beneficiary screening to run at the same real-time speed as the rest of crypto-speed screening, instead of the travel-rule check becoming the slowest link in an otherwise fast settlement process.

No. Sanctions, PEP and adverse-media screening is designed to run in real time without throttling throughput, which matters for high-speed crypto flows where transaction volume and settlement expectations are typically much higher than in traditional payments. Throughput is one of the main reasons crypto platforms have historically resisted heavier compliance tooling: a screening process built for slower, lower-volume traditional finance can become a genuine bottleneck when applied unchanged to crypto transaction speed. Real-time screening at this pace still relies on the same entity-resolution engine used across the platform, so the false-positive reduction that benefits onboarding and account screening applies here too, meaning the platform is not trading screening speed for screening quality to keep up with throughput demands.

Parties are screened against global sanctions lists in real time, and agentic entity resolution cuts false positives so analysts focus on genuine exposure across pseudonymous, cross-border activity, which is precisely the combination that makes crypto sanctions screening harder than traditional finance screening. Pseudonymity means the identifying information available to screen against is often thinner than a traditional bank would have on file, while cross-border activity means the relevant sanctions and watchlist coverage has to span many jurisdictions rather than one. Entity resolution is what keeps this combination from producing an unworkable volume of false positives, since thinner identifying data would otherwise make it harder to distinguish a genuine match from a coincidental one, exactly the problem resolution is built to solve by scoring identity coherence rather than relying on name matching alone.