from scipy.stats import poisson

# On average, 1 block is found on average every 
# "block period" which is 10 minutes
avg_blocks_per_period = 1

# but we actually found (for example) 5 blocks
obs_blocks = 5

prob = poisson.pmf(k=obs_blocks, mu=avg_blocks_per_period)
print(f"Probability of {obs_blocks} blocks in {avg_blocks_per_period} ten minute period is approximately {prob*100:.2f}%")

Turning first to the defamation cause of action, here Exceptional has not adequately shown a substantial basis in either law or fact. The two main issues Exceptional faces here are that it has offered nothing but mere conclusory remarks as to either that the statement that YieldNodes is an “investment scam” is false or that Chainalysis made the statements with actual malice. When, as is the case here, a defamation action involves Anti-SLAPP issues of public interest, “a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were false, and made with either knowledge of their falsity, or reckless disregard of whether the statements were false.” Gillespie v. Kling, 217 A.D.3d 566, 566 (1st Dept. 2023).

The closest Exceptional comes to pleading facts that show malice is the statement that Chainalysis did not revoke the 2022 Flagging after Exceptional “told them it was false”, but nowhere does Exceptional offer any facts as to why the statement is false. Conclusory allegations do not suffice to establish a substantial basis. L.Y.E. Diamonds, Ltd. V. Gemological Institute of America, Inc., 169 A.D.3d 589, 591 (1st Dept. 2019).