I'm now looking at whether the project is actually working seriously, rather than just looking at how "beautiful the roadmap is written." First, check how the treasury spends money. Milestones are not points on a PPT, but whether the on-chain data matches after the money is spent: for example, whether the funds given to R&D are continuously sent to the same addresses, and whether the pace is similar to code updates, audits, and testnet events. Conversely, if I see a sudden large transfer from the treasury to an exchange, and then the community starts aggressively promoting "partnerships" and "ecosystem" slogans, I become a bit cautious.

Recently, someone complained that on-chain data tools and label systems are lagging or even misleading, and I’ve been caught out too… So now, when I see labels like "certain institution/foundation address," I treat them as references, not as evidence. To put it simply, I still need to follow the flow of funds myself a few more times, combined with some strange packing or frontrunning traces in the mempool, to see if they are busy with serious work or just doing other things.

Next time, I plan to make a rough comparison chart of treasury expenditures and GitHub/audit timelines for several projects (a very rough one). Which one do you usually look at most to judge whether "milestones have truly been achieved"?