I’ve come across a lot of people praising address-label analysis of fund flows, and it’s got me feeling a bit uneasy. Things like “smart money” and “institutional addresses”—honestly, many on-chain labels are filled in by the project team themselves, or are just random guesses made by clustering algorithms. For example, a certain Dutch-auction/bidding address may be labeled as a “market maker,” but in reality it’s just retail consolidating funds. If you really want to look at fund flows, you’d be better off watching order book depth and how slippage changes—because it’s too costly to fabricate.

Recently, meme hype from celebrity shout-outs has been running hot. Even veteran players keep warning newcomers not to take the last baton, but somehow people just won’t listen. In plain terms, on-chain data can be used as a reference, but trusting it isn’t as good as trusting your own judgment about liquidity.

As for trading, I’ve long stopped wanting to “beat” the market. In my mindset, it’s all about practice: practicing how not to get rattled when slippage suddenly spikes, and practicing how to hold back when others are shouting fomo. After all, win rate isn’t about prediction—it’s about keeping every loss within the range you can accept. That’s it for now.