I’m currently looking at the project “Trustworthy or Not”—and I start by assuming it’s not trustworthy. I’m only deciding whether it’s worth spending another 10 minutes on. To put it simply, GitHub is more like a signal of attitude: the update frequency is normal, the commits aren’t just a pile of “misc fix,” and key changes are reviewed by someone—at least it doesn’t look like it was stitched together on the fly. Don’t overhype the audit report either. I’ll first read the conclusion and scope, especially the parts that “weren’t audited” and whether known risks are explained in plain language. Then I check whether the fix history matches the versions—otherwise it’s just reusing an old report to polish its image.

For multi-sig upgrades, I care even more: whether the signers are sufficiently distributed, whether the threshold is adequate, whether there’s a timelock (the kind that gives everyone time to react), and whether emergency permissions can change the logic with a single click. Recently, cross-chain bridges have been having problems, and after oracle glitches, everyone has been “waiting for confirmation.” It’s not that they’re scared—it’s that they’ve been taught: don’t let a single abnormal data point or a multi-sig decision determine the fate of your assets. I have my own rule: if I can unwind leverage, I do it first. If I end up participating, I try to do it in a way that allows me to exit.