Today I was browsing an on-chain data dashboard, and it suddenly made me feel a bit reflective. These labeling systems now really are a little subtle. Some addresses show “suspected hacker” at first glance, but after checking, it turns out they were being used by a compliant entity to test transfers. You can say it’s not accurate, and yet it’s flagged quite a lot of things; but if you say it’s completely trustworthy, you still feel something is off somewhere.

Ordinary users are actually pretty conflicted. They want to look at more data to make better judgments, but they’re also afraid of being misled by these “lagging” labels, or by labels created with malicious intent. Ultimately, the boundary between privacy and transparency comes down to how we define “reasonable expectations.”

As for me, I’ve gradually developed a habit: I don’t just look at the labels—I also check the transaction records and interaction history myself, especially for addresses holding large amounts. Maybe that’s also why people now say, “You think it’s anonymous, but everything is in the sunlight.” But on the other hand, even under the sunlight, you still need to leave a little shadow for yourself. It’s pretty interesting—where exactly the balance lies is something nobody can say for sure.