Authorities & Press

TL;DR

Regulators, prediction-market platforms, and journalists can reach RINGER directly (contacts below). What we can provide: hash-stamped archives of the public on-chain and market data behind every published claim, and methodology walk-throughs in as much depth as you want. What we cannot provide: identity speculation or non-public data — we have none. Everything RINGER knows was read from public blockchains and public trade tapes; the only private thing we hold is our inbox. We publish analysis; enforcement determinations belong to regulators and platforms.

How to reach us

• Regulators and law enforcement: legal@ringer.report
• Prediction-market platforms (integrity, compliance, and trust & safety teams): platforms@ringer.report
• Journalists and researchers: press@ringer.report
• Subjects of a report: appeals@ringer.report — the appeals process, with its 5-business-day SLA, is the right channel and the fastest one.

We respond to all four. Journalists on deadline: say so in the subject line.

What we can provide

1. Hash-stamped evidence archives. Behind every published RINGER claim is an archived snapshot of the underlying public records — the wallet activity tape, the funding transfers, the on-chain settlement reads — stamped with SHA-256 integrity hashes at archive time. This means we can hand over the exact data a report was built from and prove it hasn’t been altered since, and you can re-verify every row against Polygonscan and Polymarket yourself. Available on request to any of the audiences above.

2. Methodology walk-throughs. We will walk any regulator, platform, or journalist through exactly how a detection was made: the two methods (funding-graph and odds-anomaly joint gate), the specific gates a flagged ring cleared, the odds-conditioned nulls it beat and at what percentile, the human review it passed, and — just as important — the blind spots and coverage gaps that apply to it. Our methodology is published (Methodology & Limits); the walk-through is the interactive version, at whatever technical depth your team works at. We built the methodology to be defensible under adversarial questioning; ask the adversarial questions.

3. Context and prior art. Our published null results, our corrections log, our contrast cases (coordination-without-foresight versus information-signature rings), and our documented error modes. If your investigation needs to know what this class of detection can’t see, we are unusually well documented on that point — on purpose.

What we do not provide

Identity speculation — ever. RINGER’s findings are about wallet addresses and the platform usernames publicly attached to them. We do not know, do not investigate, and will not guess who is behind an address. If asked “who is this person?”, our answer is the same to a subpoena and to a headline-hungry DM: we don’t know, and nothing in our data can say. Attribution of addresses to human beings is work for people with legal process — or for journalists doing their own reporting, on their own responsibility.

Non-public data — because we have none. This is the structural fact that makes our cooperation posture simple: every input to RINGER is public. Public Polygon blockchain, public Polymarket trade tape, public settlement records. We hold no KYC files, no account records, no platform back-channel, no confidential sources. We hold emails and evidence archives of public data. A lawful request to RINGER can obtain copies of things that were always publicly verifiable, plus our analysis of them — nothing more exists.

Trade signals or market advice. Not to press, not to platforms, not to anyone. See the No-Trading Rule.

Our posture with lawful requests

We cooperate fully with lawful requests from regulators and law enforcement. Given that our data is public, cooperation is usually fast and boring: here is the archive, here are the hashes, here is the methodology, here is a person who can explain it under oath if needed.

For detections that appear to involve imminent harm — for instance, apparent coordinated positioning ahead of a violent event — we reserve a discretionary option to briefly delay publication and notify the relevant authorities and platform first. That option is discretionary and ours: it is a choice we may make case-by-case, never a standing arrangement, and never pre-clearance. No authority or platform reviews, approves, or edits RINGER reports before publication.

Referral posture: we publish analysis; you make determinations

RINGER is on the accountability side of prediction markets — we report on market activity in public markets, we do not handle or publish leaked information. But the division of labor matters and we keep to our side of it:

• We publish statistically gated, human-reviewed, evidence-archived analysis of anomalous coordination patterns — with hedged language that never exceeds what public data supports. “Consistent with coordination” is a finding we can stand behind; “insider trading” is a legal conclusion we never make.
• Regulators determine whether laws were broken. That requires evidence of access and intent — subpoena-power territory we do not have and do not want.
• Platforms determine whether their terms were violated and what to do about accounts. Our reports are built to be useful inputs to exactly that kind of integrity and enforcement process.
• Journalists connect addresses to people, when they can, by their own reporting standards. We are glad to be the receipts under that reporting; we are not the byline on the attribution.

If a RINGER report helps a regulator open a file, a platform tighten its surveillance, or a journalist nail a story — that is the product working. The determination at the end of it is yours, not ours.

RINGER analyzes public on-chain and prediction-market data. Informational only — not trading advice. Findings are probabilistic statements about accounts, never people.