In the past, when I looked at projects on GitHub, audit reports, multi-signature upgrades, it was like watching "sunny turning to cloudy": as long as it existed, that was enough. Anyway, over on L2, they’re always arguing about TPS, fees, and subsidies, hearing it so much gets tiring. Later, I realized that what truly can judge "credibility" are the details: Is there long-term activity on GitHub with people responding to issues and merge records that look like normal development, not just a rush to hit KPIs? Don’t just look at the logo in audit reports; flip through a couple of pages to see if high-risk issues are clearly written out and if there are links showing they’ve been fixed later. For multi-signature, don’t just focus on a few keys; the key point is whether upgrades can arbitrarily modify contracts, and whether there are delays and exit windows. Honestly, I’d rather take it slow to get in, than rush in with subsidies only to get slipped on slippage or backstabbed during upgrades.