Requesting a second opinion on a crypto report: how it works

When do you request a second opinion on a crypto report?

You request a second opinion as soon as a report contains a conclusion that touches your file and you cannot check what that conclusion rests on. That is not a matter of distrust but of verifiability: a finding that cannot be traced is a risk in proceedings for both parties.

In practice requests come at four moments: when a report is brought into proceedings, when an opposing party relies on a report, when a report comes out of an automated analysis without underlying bookings, and when the conclusion is firmer than the data allows. A second opinion is then a targeted test and not a new investigation.

What do you supply with a request?

You supply the complete report plus the data the report is based on, because without that second pile there is nothing to test. This is the delivery list:

• The report in its original form, including appendices, footnotes and the wording of the assignment.
• The assignment or set of questions that the report was based on, and who gave that assignment.
• The underlying transaction data: addresses and per booking the transaction hash.
• Any exports or overviews from trading platforms that were used in the report.
• The correspondence in which the starting points were agreed, such as the reference date and the rate source.
• Your own set of questions: which finding or conclusion you want tested exactly.

Data is supplied digitally or at the office. Per case a delivery list is provided which states what data is needed. Where necessary Paucitas guides the collection and delivery of that data.

If the transaction data is missing, that is itself a finding. A report whose substantiation cannot be delivered cannot be rechecked, and that is then stated as such in the second opinion.

How does the request for a second opinion on a crypto report run step by step?

The request runs in seven steps, with the set of questions fixed before the start.

1. You describe in a few lines what the doubt is about and what you want to do with the outcome.
2. Paucitas assesses in a free intake whether the documents supplied make a test possible and which demarcation is logical.
3. The questions, the scope and the costs are recorded in writing before the work begins.
4. You supply the report and the underlying data according to the delivery list.
5. Paucitas tests per finding whether the conclusion is carried by the data and verifies the bookings separately.
6. The findings are recorded in a report of its own, with a reference per point to the data used.
7. You receive the report and can put questions about the findings in writing.

If proceedings are already running, step three is the most important. A second opinion whose questions the opposing party did not know often achieves less than a simpler test that was agreed on beforehand.

What do you get back and what does it look like?

You get back a report of its own that states per finding whether it is carried by the data, and if not, where the difference lies. So it is not a repetition of the first investigation and not a counter report with a conclusion of its own about the case.

A report by Paucitas follows a fixed structure: reason and description of the assignment, the questions, the scope, the starting points, the data supplied, the sources consulted, the method in outline, verification and quality assurance, reservations and limitations, findings per part, a chronological overview, analysis and coherence, conclusion, statement of independence and appendices. Not every report contains all parts, and the structure is matched to the purpose.

Concretely you see three kinds of outcomes per finding: confirmed, not verifiable with the data supplied, or not carried by the data. That threefold division is deliberate, because the middle case occurs most often and is written down least often. How that works out in practice is shown by the case in which a counter-expertise took a crypto report apart.

Why is independence decisive here?

Independence is decisive because a second opinion on a crypto report only has value if the tester has no interest in the outcome. As soon as that interest is there, the report shifts from establishing facts to advocacy, and that is exactly the reproach an opposing party will make.

Paucitas therefore includes a statement of independence in the report and describes the method used in such a way that a third party can repeat it. The evidential value of a test leans more heavily on those two things than on the size of the report.

Paucitas uses no automated analysis software, in any role whatsoever. The investigation is done manually on the basis of publicly accessible block explorers. Every transaction and every transaction hash is verified one by one before it is included in a report.

What does a second opinion on a crypto report cost and how long does it take?

Paucitas works with a fixed rate based on your situation. Sometimes we apply an hourly rate by agreement, but the hours are always fixed in advance, so that you never face surprises. No investigation is started before the costs have been discussed and agreed.

An investigation by Paucitas takes, depending on the size of the file and the urgency, between one working day and two weeks. An urgent report can be delivered within one working day and in exceptional cases on the same day. A regular investigation is usually ready within three working days. In files with many transactions, several wallets or missing history the lead time rises to around two weeks. A surcharge applies to urgent assignments.

With a second opinion on a crypto report the lead time sits more often in supplying the underlying data than in the testing itself. If the pile is complete, a targeted test of a limited number of findings is usually ready within three working days.

Paucitas usually responds within a few minutes to an hour and in virtually all cases on the same working day.

What can a second opinion on a crypto report not do?

A second opinion on a crypto report establishes whether a conclusion is carried by the data, and not what the court should do with that judgement. That boundary is the reason the report never takes a position in your case.

• A report by Paucitas is limited to factual observations and the investigation of those observations.
• Paucitas gives no tax or legal advice.
• Paucitas does not independently establish who is behind a crypto address. What is recorded is which service provider or party holdings went to, so that this information can be followed up through the channels intended for it.
• Transactions outside the blockchain, such as cash payments or internal bookings within an exchange, are not visible in blockchain data. They are only included if underlying documents are available.
• Where mixers or privacy oriented networks are used, the chain cannot always be followed in full. In that case it is stated explicitly up to which point the route can be established.
• Paucitas makes no commitment about the outcome of an investigation.
• Paucitas holds no funds itself and carries out no transactions on behalf of clients.

Paucitas also makes no statement about the quality or the good intentions of the first investigator. What it states is whether the finding can be traced to the data, and nothing more.

What can you check yourself before you request a second opinion on a crypto report?

You can check three things yourself that often make a lot clear already. First: do the findings carry references to concrete bookings, or only to a chart or an appendix without hashes. Second: are the reference date and the rate source named. Third: is there anywhere a statement of what the investigation could not establish.

If that third part is missing entirely, that is a strong signal. A crypto investigation report without reservations does not exist in practice, because there is always something that stays out of view.

It is no longer enough as soon as you cannot assess those three points, as soon as the opposing party relies on the report, or as soon as the conclusion works through into a division or a claim. From that point an independent test is the shortest route.

Which shortcomings occur most often in crypto reports?

The four shortcomings we come across most often are always the same and none of the four has anything to do with technology. They are about accountability.

• A conclusion about a route whose intermediate steps are not substantiated with a booking, so that the reader has to take the investigator at their word.
• A valuation without a named rate source or without a time, which makes the amount impossible to recheck.
• An address attributed to a party on the basis of a label from a system, without any explanation of what that label rests on.
• The absence of any statement of what the investigation could not establish, while there is always something that stays out of view.

That last one is the most important and at the same time the easiest to recognise. A report that names no limit anywhere suggests a completeness that does not exist on the blockchain, and it is precisely that suggestion which fails at the first critical question.

A second opinion on a crypto report therefore looks at these four points first and only afterwards at the substance of the findings. In many files that is enough, because a finding that is not accounted for does not have to be refuted either.

What happens if the second opinion confirms the first report?

Then that is simply stated in the report, and that is a usable outcome. A confirmed finding makes the file stronger and prevents you from arguing about a point that cannot be won.

Paucitas does not adjust the outcome to what the client hopes for. That is not an attitude but the only way a test can have value, because a report that always confirms the client proves nothing. A counter-expertise that endorses the first finding is therefore not a failed assignment.

Where does the work of the court and the lawyer begin and where does that of Paucitas?

The court weighs the evidence and the lawyer determines the position, while Paucitas delivers only the factual test on which those two can build. For a legal judgement on your case we refer you to your lawyer, and for a tax judgement to a tax adviser.

For the wider context of the supervision that crypto service providers fall under, ESMA and the European Commission publish.

If you have doubts about a report in your file, you can have the documents gone through calmly in a free intake. We say honestly when a test cannot produce anything with the data available. More about this service is on expert reports and counter-expertise.

Date of last revision: 3 September 2026.