I recently did some address tagging/clustering experiments while browsing mempool, to be honest: they are usable, but don’t take them too seriously. A “smart money” label might actually represent multi-signature, custody, or even a bunch of people sharing a hot wallet; as for clustering algorithms, just changing parameters can split “the same person” into three groups or stick three different people together… When I look at fund flows now, I trust “behavior” more: when they frequently probe, when they suddenly go silent, whether they have a fixed routing pattern—these are more reliable than a name.

By the way, I thought of the recent NFT royalty disputes. Many people focus on creator income and secondary liquidity, but on-chain, as the number of buy-sell paths and addresses involved in wash trading increases, once you tag them, the narrative can easily go off track: what you think is “market choice” is actually just a few routing options making decisions.

As for “long-term,” I personally am quite pragmatic… On-chain, I think surviving a quarter while maintaining the same habits (not chasing blindly, not frequently changing strategies) counts as long-term; weekly/monthly patterns are more like emotional cycles. Anyway, I treat tags as clues, not conclusions.