Lately, I've become increasingly hesitant to jump to conclusions about "coincidental transfers" on the blockchain: A sends a transaction to B, and B just happens to send to C, with the timing being very tight. It looks like a code, but opening it up usually reveals several very ordinary paths layered together—such as deposits/withdrawals passing through intermediaries, batch payroll scripts, chain reactions triggered by settlements, or even just the same automation tool running on different addresses. My habit is to first map it out as small chains based on "fund source—intermediate destination—final destination," then check whether each point is a common service address, appears repeatedly, or has a fixed cycle. Otherwise, just looking at the timeline can easily lead to overinterpretation.

By the way, I also thought of the recent NFT royalty controversy. Everyone was focused on whether royalties were paid, ignoring how liquidity, routing, and aggregators can distort the story—where the money comes from and ultimately goes to, completely reshaping the structure. Honestly, sometimes it’s not that someone is cheating, but that the path twists the story. I also find it pretty annoying how people argue back and forth without anyone seriously analyzing the data. Forget it, tonight I’ll keep drawing diagrams and relaxing with some cat videos.