Today, I was watching on-chain transfers again and saw that kind of "coincidence"—A sends to B, B immediately sends to C, looking like an internal relay.

In the past, I would jump to conclusions directly, but after some losses, I learned to be cautious: first, break down the path and see if it's exchange hot wallets consolidating, cross-chain bridges transferring, or the same batch of bots doing the same thing.
Many so-called conspiracies, frankly, are just address tagging incomplete + time window constraints being too strict.

Now I set a "long-term" for myself: not the grand narrative of quarterly reports, but more like 4-6 weeks, enough to see a cycle of narrative hype and capital flow inertia, and also enough for me to verify if my judgment is biased.
Short-term is easily dragged by noise, and long-term isn't about stubbornly holding on; rules still come first: if the path explanation isn't clear, control the position or stop-loss based on the worst-case scenario.

By the way, the NFT royalty dispute also feels similar to on-chain tracking: creators want predictable income, secondary markets want smoother liquidity, and in the end, it's all about "who pays the bill."
On-chain data is the same— the clearer the explanation, the fewer emotions involved... but I also know sometimes I just want to find a reason to feel at ease, so I prefer to explain what I can first.