Just saw someone using address labels to make a case, like “whales,” “institutions,” “front-running by insiders,” categorizing everything so granular. Honestly, how much can you trust these profiles? I’ve got a few big question marks.

On-chain fund flows can indeed show some things, but the label database always lags behind the pace of developments. And some addresses are a mix of mixers plus relay contracts in sequence—labeling them as “retail” is actually just harvesting large airdrops, and the opposite can also be true.
Recently the market has been playing the opposite of expectations: with rate-cut expectations, the US dollar index and risk assets are both rising. In this kind of chaotic period, many labeled transactions in the fund flows may also include arbitrage and hedging orders, making it even harder to judge.
As for me, that’s still my point: on-chain data can only be used as clues. The key is whether the timing of fund inflows and outflows overlaps with the schedule of governance proposals and the contract upgrade windows—don’t get fooled by labels. That’s it for now; I’m going to check a few addresses’ fund flow directions and compare them with the original on-chain interaction records.