You said "label the addresses to understand the flow of funds," but I'll continue from that half-sentence... My current trust level in address profiling is probably around 60-70%. Labels and clustering can indeed save time, especially when looking at exchange hot wallets, known market-making/bridge addresses; they are quite useful directionally. But once it comes to "smart money" or "institutional positions," it's easy to get distorted by multi-signature, proxy contracts, batch distributions, or even one person managing a dozen accounts, making it hard to see the true picture. Frankly, the noise often outweighs the signal.

I personally prefer to treat it as a "hypothesis generator": first look at where the funds come from, where they go, and how long they stay, then verify with on-chain behavior, such as whether they frequently cross L2s, settle at fixed times, or stay within the same pools. Recently, the back-and-forth over TPS/fees and ecosystem subsidies among L2s has been quite noisy, but when I look at address flows, I care more about whether the migration caused by subsidies is one-time, whether the money leaves and doesn't come back. Anyway, don't blindly trust labels; only what can be verified counts.