When evaluating a project’s “trustworthiness,” don’t start by looking at the K-line—first take a look at GitHub: it’s not about making you understand the code; at least check whether someone has been actively maintaining it long-term, or whether it’s just a pile of copied-and-pasted code with names changed. Next, read the audit report: the point isn’t which organization is listed on the cover, but what was found, whether it was fixed, and which risks were accepted. If all they do is mention a bunch of low-risk issues in passing with one sentence, I’ll assume you didn’t understand them or didn’t plan to fix them. Don’t ignore permission upgrades either: can the contract be changed freely? Do multiple people need to sign, and what’s the threshold? Are the signers the same group? Can you add a time lock to give you a window to retreat? To put it simply: the more centralized the permissions, the more it feels like you’re handing your money over to strangers to hold.

Lately, the group has been churning out talk about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and de-pegging rumors—when emotions are running high, you need to come back to these tedious details… otherwise, in the end, you’ll be coming to me for psychological counseling again—that’s pretty expensive (just kidding). Anyway, don’t borrow money to add to your position; first learn to check the door lock before you walk into the house.