Lately, I've been looking at a bunch of address profiles with "tags + clustering + fund flow," and the more I look, the more I think: it's useful for reference, but don't treat it as a court ruling. Many clustering logics, to put it simply, are just "if they moved together in the same transaction," then they are considered one group. But now, with a bunch of aggregators, routers, cross-chain bridges, they easily lump you and strangers together, causing the profile to go off course. Not to mention CEX hot wallets, market makers, custody addresses—once tagged, it’s like labeling them as "whales," but they might just be passing through stations.

I personally prefer to analyze address profiles by first calculating implicit costs: how many hops does this path have, how many signatures, how much is lost in the process. Recently, retail investors have been complaining that validators earn too much, and MEV ordering is unfair. I can understand that... what you see as "fund flow" might just be a shadow driven by sorting and kickbacks. (Don’t ask, I’ve also had my profits stolen a few times by hidden fees.)