Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
When I first got into the scene, I was also frequently scammed by air coins. Ignoring everything else, I would follow the crowd and pour money into projects that others said had potential, without even reading the whitepaper, let alone checking the team background. As you can imagine—the result was that within a few days of investing, the project team would run off with the funds, leaving only a string of worthless tokens in the account.
After that lesson, I started to think about how to quickly identify promising projects. Not through complex analysis that takes a week to figure out, but with a simple and straightforward screening standard. Now I use these three criteria to evaluate projects, and I can decide in about 3 seconds whether it's worth looking into.
**First: The whitepaper must clearly state "what problem it solves"**
Junk projects' whitepapers love to pile on concepts—metaverse ecology, decentralized innovation, Web3 future… It sounds impressive, but when you ask what real problem it actually solves, they start to dodge. These projects are usually just out to scam. On the other hand, reliable projects may not be as flashy, but they clearly articulate the pain points—what existing issues are, how they plan to solve them, and why their approach will work.
**Second: The core team must be real-name verifiable**
Daring to show their true identity is the most direct test of confidence. Serious teams will publish resumes of core members, past project experience, and industry reputation, willing to be supervised by the market. Teams hiding behind pseudonyms? Usually a bad sign—they're either planning to run away or to make a quick buck and disappear.
**Third: The code must be open source on GitHub**
Open source means transparency. Anyone can review the code to check for obvious vulnerabilities, hidden backdoors, or rug-pull mechanisms. If a project keeps its code in a black box and refuses to open it, there’s nothing more to say.
Going through these three criteria quickly yields results. Over the years, this has helped me avoid more than ten scams. In Web3 investing, instead of spending all your effort trying to make money, it’s better to focus on avoiding pitfalls—each avoided trap means one less loss.
---
Projects with a white paper full of nonsense are a straight pass; I agree with that.
---
Among the three standards, the harshest is still the GitHub one—once you look, the true nature is revealed.
---
A verified team is indeed more reliable than an anonymous one, at least because of social credit constraints.
---
The phrase "Avoiding scams is more important than making money" really hit home for me.
---
Now I look at projects like this, too lazy to do in-depth research, quick screening is a lifesaver.
---
The days of throwing money without even reading the white paper are truly gone, haha.
---
For ordinary people, the barrier to open-source on GitHub is a bit high; can't understand the code.
---
I also learned to evaluate projects after losing money a few times, no other way around.
---
I feel these three standards are enough to prevent rug pulls, but black swans still can't be avoided.
---
Concepts like Metaverse and Web3 are still abundant right now, really exhausting.
Avoiding scams is indeed more cost-effective than making money; it's a brilliant point.
I now ignore projects with anonymous teams; they're not worth betting on.
Open source code—man, how many people don't even know what to look at.
Whitepapers that just tell stories are almost certainly just there to scam retail investors.
A team with real names definitely feels more reliable; at least they dare to take responsibility.
I completely pass on black box projects on GitHub; it's easier.
Using this set of standards, you can really avoid a lot of pitfalls effectively.
Honestly, I haven't seen a single credible white paper that doesn't shy away from real issues.
I immediately deleted the team’s anonymous account—just thinking about it feels shady.
Closed-source code? Laughable, how can anyone trust that?
Avoiding risks is a hundred times more important than making money.
Wow, I need to save this set of standards.
It should have been done like this a long time ago, saving a lot of blood, sweat, and tears money.
I can now recognize projects with whitepapers full of nonsense at a glance, no need to waste effort.
It's even more outrageous when GitHub is closed source, clearly indicating guilt.
This set of standards is useful, but the key is proper implementation; otherwise, it's still easy to be fooled.
Honestly, avoiding pitfalls is much more important than chasing gains; this has already been a painful lesson.
By the way, how many projects have you eliminated using these three rules? Is there a percentage?
Anyway, I now evaluate projects based on this, and the hit rate is pretty good.
But this set isn't foolproof; some projects hide their true nature very deeply in the early stages.
We’ve had similar experiences; back in the day, we also got burned badly.
---
I really can't stand the bunch of nonsense in the white paper, just pass directly.
---
The most ruthless is the open-source on GitHub; you can see right through what the project team is really like.
---
It's true that avoiding scams is more important than making money. I've lived by that principle too.
---
I was already cut out of five figures just because I didn't check the team background before.
---
Simple and straightforward standards are the way to go; complicated analysis is more likely to be brainwashing.
---
The black box on GitHub is a warning sign of a rug pull; nine out of ten times, they've run away.
---
Now, when looking at a project, I always ask: what does the white paper solve? If it can be easily fooled, it gets immediately removed.
---
A verified team is truly a mirror that reveals the true nature; those wanting to scam retail investors don't dare to use real names.
---
Having been burned so many times, I finally understand that Web3 is just a game of dodging landmines.