I wonder if the project team is actually working seriously. Lately, instead of watching how they “sell promises,” I’m more focused on how they spend the treasury—and whether it’s money well spent. Money spent on development, audits, and operations—things that can line up with milestones—plus the ability to give a delivery timeline (even if delayed, with an explanation) makes me feel more at ease. But if treasury spending is full of “consultant fees/market cooperation,” and the milestones are always vague, then I basically treat it as them buying time.

In the past couple of days, in the group chats, rumors about stablecoin regulation and reserve audits, along with all kinds of “de-pegging” talk, have started looping around and getting reposted again. Once emotions run hot, it’s easy to take “looks like they’re being busy” as “they’re really doing work.” For my part, I’m forcing myself to look at the on-chain data: Is the treasury being siphoned off in a regular pattern? After spending, is there corresponding output—versions, governance actions? I don’t need perfection, but it should form a closed loop.

Next time, I plan to put the project’s milestones into my own observation checklist. If they don’t deliver on schedule, I’ll directly reduce my position… How do you usually judge whether treasury spending is reliable?