Considering nature of EVM where addresses being accessible/controlled by a private key on one chain is usually indicative of it being controlled on all other chains, it might not make sense to have labels completely segregated by chains. It might make sense to treat a label on etherscan to be equally valid as one found on bscscan or polygonscan.
Todo
Determine number of overlapping addresses and whether its worthwhile to combine them?
Edge case: Old gnosis multi-sig deployed by nonce of the contract rather than address of sender. We have a counter example here where a contract address can be owned by a differing address, but this is likely an extreme edge case
Considering nature of EVM where addresses being accessible/controlled by a private key on one chain is usually indicative of it being controlled on all other chains, it might not make sense to have labels completely segregated by chains. It might make sense to treat a label on etherscan to be equally valid as one found on bscscan or polygonscan.
Todo
Edge case: Old gnosis multi-sig deployed by nonce of the contract rather than address of sender. We have a counter example here where a contract address can be owned by a differing address, but this is likely an extreme edge case