Honestly, I’ve seen too many of those on-chain “coincidental transfers” lately, and I can’t shake the feeling that there’s a bit of something going on behind them. For example, when a certain token suddenly gets a large transfer into an exchange, everyone’s first reaction is, “They’re about to dump.” But if you track it on-chain, it might actually be a market maker rebalancing their positions, or an arbitrageur testing out a new protocol. In plain terms, a lot of so-called “coincidences” are just planned “turning over” between hands.

Take it slow—don’t rush to jump on the bandwagon. Once, I watched a transfer route for almost two days before I realized it was an MEV bot trying to get there first on purpose, splitting the transfer into multiple parts and taking a roundabout route, and in the middle it even went through three cross-chain bridges. You call it “abnormal,” but to them, it’s just following the script.

The whole social mining setup has been pretty popular lately—attention mining, which sounds mysterious. But I think on-chain data doesn’t lie. Those projects that try to pump the price by relying on imagination ultimately have to come back to liquidity. Go a little late, and move only after the path is clear—you at least won’t fall into a trap.

Anyway, that’s just how I am. When I see a weird transfer, I screenshot it first, then slowly break it down. Sometimes, after I’ve dissected it, I find it’s simply a big holder testing a wallet—nothing like what I initially expected. That’s it for now.