I'm not very good at... that kind of mystical profiling where you instantly label an address as "whale/smart money/project team alt" just by looking at it, but after watching many new project fund flows, I feel that labels can only serve as "suspicion hints" and not as evidence. To put it simply, there are too many disguises: the same person splitting across a dozen addresses and washing funds to look like an ordinary user, and when clustering tools merge them, you might think you've caught a big fish, but it could just be a hot wallet from an exchange or a market-making relay.

Now I trust more in "how the money flows" rather than "who they are." For example, a few hours before a launch, where does the funding come from, is there a clear temporary concentration, who can modify contract permissions, does the selling rhythm match the unlocking/market-making pace... these are more reliable than a label.

Recently, everyone has been guessing whether projects will migrate during the main chain upgrade/maintenance, but I think whether they migrate or not isn't that important. What's important is that the migration period is the easiest time to mess up the fund flow, which just creates noise for "address profiling." Anyway, I focus first on permissions and exit paths, and treat labels as an aid—being too confident can lead to being misled.