I look at whether the project team is truly working hard—without even looking at the PPT first. I check how the treasury money is spent, and whether anything is left behind after it’s spent. On-chain transfers are straightforward: on one side, they keep paying for audits/development/infrastructure steadily, with a stable pace; on the other side, they send big sums to a batch of brand-new wallets every so often, and the memo is also vague and unclear… In plain terms, it’s like renovation—every day you buy cement and electrical wire, not very glamorous, but in the end you can live there. If you only buy greenery and incense and take photos, it looks good—but two weeks later, you still get leaks.

Milestones shouldn’t just be taken at face value when they say “go live next month.” What I care about more is whether there are verifiable traces: things like code updates, testnet interactions, Bug fixes, and the progress of governance proposals. Small steps taken quickly are more reliable than making big, one-off boasts.

Lately, they’ve been hyping social mining and the fan-token setup—the “attention is mining” pitch. I’m not saying it’s definitely a fallacy, but attention is too much like takeout coupons: when they’re issued, everyone shows up, and when they stop, everyone disperses. If the project team really wants to go long-term, they need to spend the treasury on places where the cash flow and use cases can be made real. Otherwise, it’s just excitement all right—once the wind dies down, all that remains are the transfer records in the ledger.