Have you noticed that some projects are constantly talking about milestones, but on the chain it looks like they haven't started at all… Recently, I find that watching government treasury expenditures is more reliable than looking at PPTs. To be clear, it's not that spending more is better, but whether the money is spent with a proper rhythm: for example, before and after releasing a version or making a partnership, does the wallet have corresponding R&D, multi-signature allocations, audit fees—normal expenses—or is there a period of inactivity, then suddenly a large sum is transferred to an exchange, with the reason written in a very artistic way.

I usually focus on a few very basic points: whether the treasury address is public and stable, whether the expenditure notes/governance proposals match up, and whether there are “verifiable traces” of milestones (code updates, on-chain deployments, community voting execution). Some projects are best at talking about their “plans,” but the flow of money is like the tide—only going out, not coming back in—then it’s a bit… hmm.

Recently, the narrative about ETF fund flows has been used together with risk appetite in the US stock market to interpret things. When emotions run high, people tend to overlook these slow indicators more easily. Anyway, I now prefer to take it slow, to see clearly whether they are actually doing things or just telling stories. That’s all for now.