I'm not very good at doing address profiling that instantly reveals “smart money”… but the more I look, the more I feel that labels can only be treated as clues—never as a verdict. Clustering is even more esoteric: the same batch of addresses might just be the same person splitting up a position, the same team dividing tasks, or even an exchange/custodial wallet internally reallocating funds. If you use that to infer “fund flows,” it’s easy to mistake arbitrage for accumulation.

Lately, there’s been a lot of debate about miners/validators’ income, MEV, and whether the ordering is truly fair. Put simply, the “flow” you see on-chain is sometimes the shape squeezed out from in between—retail investors watch the spectacle, but the outcome has already been lined up. Personally, I trust this approach more: first, check whether authorizations were given recklessly, whether the contract is legitimate, and whether the entry point is a phishing trap—then look at labels. Address profiling can be a reference, but I trust it at most 60%; the remaining 40% I leave for “maybe I misread it.”