I used to be quite stubborn and paranoid—always saying, “I only look at the on-chain data.” I thought that once you pull together address labels and run clustering, the flow of funds becomes as clear as a weather map. Later, I got slapped in the face a few times: under the same “smart money” label, it could be several entities like custodians, team multisigs, or market makers “changing pockets” with each other; and the clustering can get even more ridiculous—once you string together wallet tools, gas-fee payments, and cross-chain routing, they force you into thinking it’s “one person.” In plain terms, it may sound credible, but it’s not reliable or authentic.

Recently, the airdrop season has made it even more obvious. Task platforms roll out a full set of anti-sybil measures plus a points system, and those who “farm” rewards compete like it’s just another work shift—on-chain behavior has been “turned into a playbook.” The profiles you see are often just “acting according to the rules” for you to observe. Now I treat them as prompts, not conclusions: look at labels first and ask where they might misjudge, then check whether lending positions and the interest-rate curves change along with it. There may be fluctuations in fund flows, but don’t rush to slap personality labels on people… for now, let it be like this.