In brief
For Base users, the labels are the important part.
Start with a normal Base-token problem
A token starts moving.
Volume jumps. A few wallets appear to be buying aggressively. One address has a large position. Another took profit minutes before the move reversed.
The blockchain gives you the transactions.
It does not tell you whether those wallets are:
- an exchange;
- a repeat profitable trader;
- a protocol treasury;
- an exploiter;
- a phishing address;
- a random wallet with one lucky trade.
That missing context is exactly what wallet labeling is trying to solve.
What Nansen added
On October 1, Nansen announced 200,000+ additional fomo wallet labels across Solana and Base, with holdings, trades and PnL searchable in the product.
Three days earlier, it launched memory for Nansen Agent. Users can tell the Agent how they trade, what they care about and how they want answers structured, and that context can carry into future requests.
Those two features solve different problems:
| Feature | Problem it solves |
|---|---|
| Wallet labels | "Who might this address represent?" |
| Holdings/trades/PnL context | "What has this wallet actually been doing?" |
| Agent Memory | "Why do I have to explain my workflow every session?" |
Why labels are useful — and dangerous
A good label can save time.
A bad interpretation can create false confidence.
If a wallet is labeled Smart Money, that does not mean its next trade is smart. If an address has profitable history, that does not mean it has information you do not. If several labeled wallets buy the same token, that still does not prove the token is safe.
Labels are context, not a verdict.
That is especially important in crypto because copy-trading psychology is powerful. The label can become a story faster than the evidence deserves.
A better Base workflow
For a new Base token, I would use Nansen and a security scanner for different jobs.
Nansen can help answer:
- Who is holding?
- Which wallets are buying or selling?
- Do those wallets have recognizable behavior?
- Is activity concentrated in a small group?
- Are known suspicious or exploit-linked addresses involved?
A token-risk workflow should still answer:
- Can the token be sold?
- What permissions exist?
- Is liquidity sufficient and stable?
- Is ownership concentrated?
- Are there contract-level warning signals?
One tool does not replace the other.
The useful research stack is identity/context plus contract/security evidence.
Agent Memory is useful for a boring reason
The AI feature sounds flashy. Its best benefit is actually mundane.
Repeated research has setup cost.
If you always care about Base, want PnL shown a certain way, prefer short answers and repeatedly ask for the same wallet cuts, remembering those preferences saves time.
That does not make the Agent more correct.
It makes the workflow less repetitive.
That is a worthwhile improvement, but it should not be confused with better signal quality.
Is Nansen worth paying for?
If your crypto research is mostly price charts and headlines, probably not.
Nansen becomes more interesting when your questions are about wallet behavior:
- Who accumulated before the move?
- Are profitable traders rotating into this sector?
- What does a specific address hold elsewhere?
- Are large holders distributing?
- Is this wallet cluster familiar or suspicious?
That is where the product has a reason to exist.
If those are already the questions you ask, the fastest way to judge Nansen is to run one real Base research session through it and see whether the labels save enough time to matter.
Frequently asked questions
What did Nansen add in October 2026?
Nansen says it added more than 200,000 searchable fomo wallet labels across Solana and Base, including holdings, trades and PnL context.
What is Nansen Agent Memory?
It lets the Agent retain user preferences such as research priorities, preferred answer format and trading context between sessions.
Can Nansen tell me whether a Base token is safe?
No. Wallet intelligence can add behavioral context, but token safety also depends on contract permissions, liquidity and other technical risk signals.
Original Jepeta evidence
- source audit — Jepeta compared the cited Nansen documentation with the workflow, benefits and limits described in this article. This is a documentation audit and editorial analysis, not a hands-on product test. · observed Oct 7, 2026
Sources
- Nansen Changelog: +200,000 fomo Wallets Labels on Nansen · primary · verified Oct 7, 2026
- Nansen: Labels & Watchlists 101 · primary · verified Oct 7, 2026