It was raining today, and the traffic was so bad that my coffee got cold... I took a quick look at the chain, and there was yet another case where someone treated a “coincidental transfer” as a big-player signal. To put it plainly, a lot of these so-called coincidences can actually be broken down into pretty ordinary steps: A first moves funds from a CEX to a new address, transfers it around a couple of times to reshuffle the UTXO / avoid risk-control traceability, and then it goes into an aggregator/router contract. After that, it comes out and gets split across several receiving addresses—exactly how it ends up looking connected to another popular tag, which is then screenshot and turned into a “story.” Haven’t people also been complaining recently about how the on-chain tools and the tagging system lag behind and easily mislead others? Now, when I see charts like this, I don’t trust the tags first—I reconcile everything: where the entry funds originally came from, the transaction fees/slippage at each hop, and whether the intermediate contracts are “common transfer hubs.” A lot of the time, profit isn’t eaten away by market moves—it’s drained by these hidden costs and misreadings. It’s really annoying.