04 — TRACKING - explorer, mempool, pools, flows

Follow the value

A transparent address is as public as a Bitcoin one: every UTXO, every spend, every counterparty and every amount is on the chain and is returned exactly. What it put into a shielded pool is exact too. Where that value went afterwards is not, and every row below that crosses the boundary carries the estimate and the assumptions instead of an answer.

what a query can return

t-address: exact balance, history, counterparties, boundary events
z or unified address: undefined not on chain - exact with your viewing key
txid: public fields candidate sets, N_eff, links
labels: consensus > owner filing > exchange > analyst > behaviour

address - P2SH - 2-of-3 multisig - mainnet

t3ev37Q2uL1sfTsiJQJiWJoFzQpDhmnUwYo

ZIP 271 lockbox disbursement multisiglabel: consensus - precedence 1 of 5high

balance

78,183.4093

exact exact - every credit and debit is a transparent UTXO

received

93,496.6388

3 credits, two of them returns from the pool

sent

15,313.2295

2 debits, both into shielded outputs

net to pool

566.5907

0.72 percent of the disbursement - untraceable after this hop

reasoning - why we can say what we say

01Identity is consensus-defined. ZIP 271 writes this address into the consensus rules and names the 2-of-3 key-holders: the Zcash Foundation, the Electric Coin Company and Shielded Labs. No vendor label is involved, and this is the only kind of ownership claim this site makes. high
02Balances are exact. Every credit and debit is a transparent UTXO. The 78,750 was minted in the NU6.1 activation coinbase at block 3,146,400 as ten outputs of 7,875. high
03Spends are shielded by mandate. ZIP 271 requires each chunk to be spent completely into a shielded output. After the first hop the funds are inside the pool, so no exchange, custodian or counterparty can be named for any of them. high
04The partial echo grades LOW. 7,875 went into the pool at 23:09 and 7,438.2295 came back at 23:29 - a residual of 436.7705, or 5.5 percent, against a relative tolerance of 0.01 percent. The timing is tight and the address is the same. It is shown with its arithmetic; it is not claimed. med
05What is not returned. Who initiated the two spends. Where the 566.5907 ZEC that has not come back went. Whether anything was sold. None of the three is derivable from this address, and the page does not offer a guess at any of them.

Shape

balance as a step - counterparties as a graph

balance over time - step - ZEC

Lockbox balance after each transaction
When	Height	Balance ZEC	What moved
2025-11-24 19:56:41	3,146,399	0	no movement
2025-11-24 19:56:42	3,146,400	78,750	78,750 minted - NU6.1 activation coinbase
2026-02-03 23:09:40	3,227,947	70,875	7,875 into the pool
2026-02-03 23:29:23	3,227,959	78,313.2295	7,438.2295 back, 20 minutes later
2026-04-14 21:24:25	3,308,125	78,183.4093	129.8202 into the pool
2026-08-22 14:58:00	3,456,854	78,183.4093	no movement

interactions - edge width proportional to the square root of value

Counterparties of this address
From	To	What	ZEC
NU6.1 coinbase	lockbox	coinbase 78,750	78,750
lockbox	Orchard pool	to pool 7,875 + 129.82	8,004.8202
Orchard pool	lockbox	from pool 7,438.2295	7,438.2295

coinbase
pool boundary

No transparent counterparties at all. Every spend crosses the boundary, which is what ZIP 271 requires, and nothing downstream of that boundary is attributable.

Transactions

4 - newest first - pool-side estimates attached to boundary events

Every transaction touching this address, newest first, with the pool-side estimate for each boundary event.
Height and time (UTC)	Direction	Amount	Counterparty	Pool-side estimate	txid
3,308,125 2026-04-14 21:24:25	t to z - partial	-129.82027,438.2295 spent, 7,308.4093 back as change	shielded pool Orchard - change returns to this address	0 candidates after 2 filters. requires disclosure how this was bounded - 2 filters, 3 assumptions 812exit candidates in the 576-block windowno candidates removed 0amount echo, exact and relative-812 0N_eff - H = 0.00 bitsrequires disclosure No deshield in the window matches 129.8202 ZEC to within 0.01 percent, or exactly. The value is therefore still inside the pool as far as public data can tell, and the honest answer is that the origin is unresolved rather than unknown-but-guessable. The claim chip reads requires-disclosure because the ladder is computed from N_eff and 0 is below its strictest threshold. Nothing survived here, so there is nothing to disclose either; the level is left strict rather than relabelled, because a ladder that softens when the answer is empty is a ladder that can be argued down when it is not. No exit in the window matches 129.8202 within tolerance. The value stays in the pool as far as public data can tell.	8a937240...
3,227,959 2026-02-03 23:29:23	z to t	+7,438.2295	shielded pool Orchard - 1 nullifier, anchor depth 2	1,204 candidates after 4 filters. aggregate only LOW how this was bounded - 4 filters, 3 assumptions 4.92Mraw candidate set, anchor boundno candidates removed 3.11Mspent-count subtraction-1.81M 1,204time window, W = 576 blocks-3.11M 1,204amount echo, epsilon = 1e-4 - REMOVED NOTHINGno candidates removed 1,204N_eff - H = 10.23 bitsaggregate only A single-note spend. Two notes of 3,719.11 each would look identical from outside and are not excluded. Receipt within the 576-block window of the anchor - about twelve hours at 75 seconds a block. That the 7,875 ZEC this address shielded twenty minutes earlier is the origin. The amount echo does NOT support that: the residual is 436.7705 ZEC, 5.5 percent, against a tolerance of 0.01 percent. What is left is a coincidence of timing and of address, which is why this grades LOW and not MEDIUM. Origin candidates narrowed to 1,204. The 7,875 shield twenty minutes earlier is the leading one and the amount does not support it.	1f6099a4...
3,227,947 2026-02-03 23:09:40	t to z	-7,875	shielded pool Orchard - no transparent outputs	1 candidate after 2 filters. requires disclosure LOW how this was bounded - 2 filters, 2 assumptions 331deshields within 576 blocksno candidates removed 1amount echo against 7,875.0000-330 1N_eff - H = 0.00 bitsrequires disclosure One candidate survives, and it survives on timing and address reuse rather than on the amount: 436.7705 ZEC of the 7,875 did not come back and is unresolved in the pool. A single candidate at N_eff 1 would ordinarily be a requires-disclosure claim. It is graded LOW anyway, because the filter that produced the single candidate is the weakest one in the toolkit. The claim level and the link grade are answering different questions and this row is where that shows. Exit watch: 7,438.2295 returned to this address twenty minutes later. Residual 436.7705 ZEC unresolved in the pool.	eaedfddd...
3,146,400 2025-11-24 19:56:42	coinbase	+78,75010 outputs of 7,875	NU6.1 activation coinbase lockbox value pool - protocol issuance	Protocol issuance. There is nothing to estimate: the coinbase is written by the consensus rules.	525f4402...

Explorer note. Blockchair renders the 7,875 ZEC shielded spend as a fee. It is not a fee; it is value entering the pool - an example of why the boundary needs its own explorer.

What this page does not return

stated, not omitted

Who signed either spend. Where the 566.5907 ZEC that has not come back went. Whether anything was sold, and to whom. Every one of the three would need a signal from outside the chain, and none of the three is derivable from what is on it. The site says so here rather than leaving the absence to be read as an oversight. INFO