Today I saw someone use "coincidental transfers" as solid evidence again... Honestly, there aren't that many coincidences on the blockchain; it's more about the paths not being broken down: A sending to B, which looks like a private collusion, but it might have first gone through a pooling address, then through a CEX hot wallet, and finally been split by market makers/robots into several parts and sent back on-chain. If you only focus on one hop, of course it looks like a plot.

Recently, there's been complaints about data tools and tagging systems being laggy or even misleading, right? I now basically treat tags as "alerts": first follow the flow of funds to trace the entry/exit points, then check contract permissions, whether they can freely mint/blacklist, and if there are any strange admin operations. Anonymous + no lock-up + large permissions, combined with a "coincidence" narrative, anyway I get allergic, so I just avoid it.