Lately, I keep hearing people say that two on-chain transfers are "too coincidental," and they start imagining conspiracy theories... I usually think of it as a delivery route: A to B doesn't necessarily mean "familiarity," it could be passing through a relay station, changing packaging, then sorting out. For example, the same money is withdrawn from an exchange, goes through an aggregator/router, then into a contract, and is split into several parts sent to different addresses. It looks like a series of coincidences, but it's actually just process design.

To put it simply, I first draw the route: Does the source of funds resemble the same "water faucet," is there a common "transfer station" in the middle, and is the final destination a long-term address or a one-time address? Many so-called coincidences are just reasons like "saving transaction fees," "using default routing," or "batch settlement" after breaking down.

By the way, I want to complain about the recent L2s criticizing TPS and fees—it's pretty much like "delivery companies advertising themselves as faster and cheaper"... But if you really want to know how the package moves, you still need to look at the on-chain route map, not just listen to advertising slogans. Anyway, I prefer to look at the route more carefully; placing an order a bit later is fine.