Recently, I looked at a few address labels—things like “smart money,” “institutional affiliation,” and “early interactions.” At first glance, they sound pretty convincing, but if you dig into the transfer records, you’ll find that some are simply dormant addresses that were only moved into via a single transaction and then never touched again, or they’re only tagged because of an airdrop interaction. Anyway, I’m a bit confused. For address profiling, you have to look at the chain separately and the protocol separately; sometimes it’s pretty much like marking a boat’s position on the river and expecting the same conditions every time.

The recent verbal sparring between Layer 2s has also been pretty heated. Everyone’s comparing TPS and subsidies, but honestly, if you only rely on address labels to hype things up, it doesn’t hold a candle to directly checking the actual cross-chain fund flows and the frequency of contract interactions. In any case, my current approach is: trust the labels for 30%, and leave the remaining 70% to myself to verify by reviewing transfer records and audit reports—otherwise, if you step into a trap, you won’t even know how you got taken out.