Recently, when I see project promotions using words like “audited” and “multi-signature upgrade,” to be blunt, it’s about how newcomers judge trustworthiness. I think it’s best not to blindly believe the slogans right away. I’ll casually click around on GitHub: whether the code has been modified by the same people over the long term, or whether it’s just a few superficial commits to make it look busy; whether the upgrade-related changes clearly explain the motivation and impact—at least you can tell whether the team is actually working. And don’t just look at the cover logo on the audit report—I’ll go to the page about “issues found” to check whether all high-risk problems have been fixed, whether there are a bunch of “accepting risks,” and whether the audit is too far in the past compared with now.

As for multi-signature, I care even more about who the signatories are, what the threshold is, and whether the contract can be changed by just one or two people… Anyway, “upgradable” sounds high-end, but in reality it just means bigger permissions.

Modularization/DA layer development has been getting a lot of hype among developers lately, and it’s normal for users on the other side to feel confused. But the more complex the underlying layer gets, the more I’m willing to take one extra step: I’d rather be a bit troublesome and wait 24 hours, read the upgrade announcement and the on-chain transactions carefully before taking action. If you miss it, then you miss it—at least you won’t be tricked by fake moves a second time.