After scanning the on-chain data for a round, I suddenly feel that address profiling these days is getting more and more like “filter selfies.”

The moment the airdrop season starts, everyone crazily piles up points and does tasks. For those addresses marked as “smart money,” how much is truly real trading activity, and how much is actually accounts the project itself has been nurturing? Anti-sybil checks are strict, but the interaction records generated by bots—plus a few on-chain tags—can still give an address a label like “a polished user.” To be honest, I often see some addresses claiming “high-frequency interactions,” but their fund flows look as orderly as an assembly line. You can tell at a glance they’re just arbitration scripts.

Instead, I prefer watching those “silent” big holders—they don’t chase hot trends or farm points. Their fund flows are steady, and when they move, it’s usually a sign of the direction of things to come. Anyway, I’ve become increasingly cautious about labeled address profiles. It’s better to look more at the real on-chain fund movements: who is continuously depositing, and who is quietly withdrawing—than those “smart money” labels, which are far less real.

That’s it for now. I’ll keep staring at the charts and daydreaming.