Recently, I’ve seen a bunch of screenshots of “address labels / smart money clustering” flying all over the place. To put it plainly: you can use them as a reference, but don’t treat them as the truth. When I test bridges and watch for liquidity gaps myself, I find that it’s normal for the same person to have a dozen-plus addresses. Exchange hot wallets, market-making multisig wallets, and team distribution addresses get mixed together—then once the clustering algorithm gets excited, it can drag unrelated people into the same pot too… And then in the group chat it starts with, “He’s back in the market again,” and the vibe is pretty lively. Still, I usually take a couple of minutes to calm down first.

I’d rather look to see whether the fund flow is “getting stuck.” For example: the liquidity depth on both ends of the bridge suddenly thins out, a certain route becomes congested, or gas behaves unusually—this is more reliable than labels. The same goes for this modular/DA layer wave: developers are chatting at full speed, while ordinary users are totally confused. In the end, you still need to look at where the money is going and where it’s easiest for things to get trapped. Slow down a bit to verify—actually, that’s faster.