Crypto disputes are often argued from screenshots — a wallet balance, an exchange statement, an internal file note. These artifacts feel concrete, but as evidence they are materially weaker than the public ledger, and treating them as equivalent is a recurring source of error.
Off-chain artifacts are assertions, not records
A screenshot shows what an interface displayed at a moment in time. It can be cropped, staged, edited, or simply wrong, and it reflects a platform’s internal accounting rather than the underlying chain. Two screenshots said to show the same wallet can carry inconsistent dates or depict different files. None of that is visible on the face of the image, which is exactly why it should not be relied upon uncritically.
The public ledger is verifiable by anyone
An on-chain transaction, by contrast, is recorded permanently and identically for every observer. A balance or a transfer asserted in a screenshot can be checked against the ledger directly: either the chain corroborates it or it does not. Where the two conflict, the ledger governs, because it is the record the screenshot is supposed to be depicting.
The methodological point
An expert opinion built only on off-chain records inherits every weakness of those records. An opinion anchored in first-hand tracing and verification against the public ledger does not — and it can absorb the screenshots as corroboration where they hold up, and identify them as unreliable where they do not. The order matters: verify on-chain first, then read the off-chain material against it.
Where an opinion depends on a screenshot that the ledger cannot corroborate, that dependence should be stated plainly, not hidden.