When evaluating whether a project is "trustworthy or not," I usually don't rely on the hype in announcements. First, I check their GitHub: it's not about whether you can code, but whether someone has been seriously working in the past three months, whether the commits are just spelling corrections or meaningful changes, and whether those changes are explained. Then, I look at the audit reports—don't just stop at the cover page that says "Audited"; flip two pages further to see how issues were handled: were they "fixed" or just accepted as risks?

Also, regarding multi-signature upgrades (which is the only term I’m using today), basically, who can change the rules with one click. Having many signers doesn't necessarily mean it's safe; what's important is who the signers are, whether their identities are public, and if there's a delay mechanism. Recently, new L1/L2 projects are offering incentives to attract TVL, and old users complain about "mining, dumping, and selling." I can understand that: during the hype, it's easier to overlook these details as if they don't exist... Anyway, I prefer to be a bit slower rather than get caught up in the "launch now, future later" hype.