Topic starter
24/10/2026 8:47 pm
TL;DR: JPEG Trading shifted from manual wallet diligence to real-time pre-signature screening and onchain monitoring across 500+ assets and 15+ chains, including non-EVM networks, according to Blockaid. Wallet governance now has to move into the signing path when the operational footprint expands this fast.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Blockaid: “Prop Desk to Curator: JPEG Trading's Security Evolution With Blockaid”.
By the numbers:
- JPEG Trading expanded coverage to 500+ assets across 15+ chains under its monitoring scope.
Key questions
Q: Why do manual wallet reviews fail in fast-moving DeFi operations?
A: Manual review fails because the pace and volume of transactions outstrip human contract-by-contract diligence.
Q: What signals show that onchain monitoring is not covering the real risk surface?
A: A monitoring programme is incomplete when it only tracks expected holdings but misses vault exposure, protocol dependencies, or chains outside the main ecosystem.
Q: How should security teams stop malicious onchain transactions before signature release?
A: They should place transaction simulation and policy checks inside the signing workflow, not beside it.
Practitioner guidance
- Enforce transaction simulation before signature Require every wallet workflow to evaluate contract behaviour and destination impact before the signing event can complete.
- Model wallet policy by operating purpose Separate trading, operational, and vault-management wallets into different policy sets so approved venues, address whitelists, and notional limits match the use case.
- Extend monitoring to full asset inventory Track assets, vault exposures, and protocol dependencies across all supported chains, including non-EVM networks, so coverage does not stop at the obvious holdings.
Bottom line: The core risk is not only theft, but unsafe transaction approval through a wallet workflow that trusts too much at signing time.
Glossary terms: Signing-path assurance, On-Chain Monitoring, Transaction Simulation, Wallet policy layering
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/10/2026 11:13 am
Signing-time trust is the real control boundary for onchain wallets: The article shows that custody controls and post-trade monitoring are not enough when the dangerous act is the transaction itself. A wallet programme can be operationally mature and still fail if it cannot evaluate what a transaction does before it is authorised. The practitioner conclusion is that approval authority has to move earlier in the workflow, where the risk is created.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between post-trade monitoring and pre-signature screening?
A: Post-trade monitoring looks for risk after a transaction has already happened, while pre-signature screening evaluates the transaction before the wallet authorises it. For onchain treasury and trading teams, that difference matters because the harmful action is often the authorisation itself, not the later observation of it.
👉 Read our full editorial: Pre-transaction screening closes the MPC wallet defense gap
This post was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group