Replying to what you just said about "Treasury spending = doing work?" I’ve also been conflicted about this... Now I look at whether projects are being taken seriously, rather than just focusing on how big the promises are on their mouths, I prefer to check the Treasury expenditures: where the money is going, whether the pace is steady, and if it matches the milestones. For example, first saying they will do a security audit, then seeing actual payments made to the auditors, and after launch, continuing to fix vulnerabilities—these are more like genuine progress; on the other hand, if the main focus is on marketing/BD/"ecosystem incentives" from the start, with vague milestones, it feels more like just buying hype.

Another small point: does the Treasury dare to clearly state the budget, and will they explain when there are changes? Recently, some regions have been tightening or loosening regulations on taxes and compliance, and when deposit and withdrawal expectations change, many projects start rushing to "acquire new users," which makes it easier to spend money on short-term targets... I personally prefer to take it slow and see if they can align their accounts and deliverables. Anyway, I’ve been burned before—making the books look good but the project never materialized, which is quite frustrating.