This is the third time I've seen someone use "tags/clustering" to make judgments... To be honest, address profiling can only be trusted about 60-70%, it's more about narrowing down the scope rather than drawing conclusions. An address today might be a "whale," but tomorrow it could be a custodian/multisig moving assets; the same goes for clustering—when encountering intermediaries, aggregators, cross-chain transfers, or batch consolidations, on-chain it looks like a group of people, but they might just be passing through the same pipeline.

The recent testnet incentives made this even more obvious, with expected points rising together, and everyone is "spamming." The flow chart suddenly looks like a fake face: the same funds bouncing back and forth, and the tags get more and more confident. Then no one can say for sure whether the mainnet will issue tokens or not... Anyway, when I look at fund flows, I first ask: does this path have economic motivation? If it's only "to look like it," then it's probably just noise. To be more precise, I also look at interaction timing, contract roles, and deposit/withdrawal criteria; otherwise, it's quite easy to be led astray.