Lately I've been looking at those "address profiling/tags/clustering" things again, and the more I look, the more I feel: they can be useful, but don't take them too seriously. Many clusters, to put it simply, are just pieced together based on interaction paths. When you encounter routing, aggregators, cross-chain bridges, wallets can look like they're dressing up; today they're "smart money," tomorrow they might be "retail investors"... I prefer to focus on the rhythm of fund flows and the small details of transaction batching, at least I won't be led around by a single tag.

This wave of new L1/L2s is again offering incentives to boost TVL, and veteran users in the group complain about "mining, selling, and dumping," which I truly resonate with: a bunch of addresses look like long-term participants, but they're actually just task-driven traffic, withdrawing the next day. Tags can tell you "who they look like," but they can't tell you "why they came or when they're planning to leave."

And then there's the need to refresh/retry on-chain data often, waiting in line for a long time just to get results... by the time you see the "fund flow," it might have already changed hands several times. Anyway, I now treat profiling as a reference, not a conclusion—don't let a string of tags dictate your actions.