I’ve been lurking in the group for quite a while, but I can’t help saying this: if a newbie wants to see whether a project is “reliable,” don’t just stare at the K-line for answers. First, wipe the mirror clean and check whether you’re being led around by emotions… I usually start with three small things.

On GitHub, don’t only look at stars and the number of commits. Focus on: whether there’s long-term maintenance by someone, whether key changes have discussion records, and whether the release and on-chain contract upgrade times line up. And don’t let the words “audited” in the audit report fool you—flip through a few pages to see what scope was actually audited, whether there are “known issues not fixed / known issues unremediated / recommendations only,” and whether the same company uses a one-size-fits-all template everywhere. Lastly, check upgrade permissions and multisig: how many people are involved, what the threshold is, who holds the keys (a mix of team/community/institutions is more reassuring), and whether there are “brakes” like delay and emergency pause.

Haven’t people also been arguing recently about on-chain data tools, lagging even to the point of misleading tag systems? So I’d rather cross-check with things that are publicly verifiable: the code, the reports, and the permission structure. Only when all three match can the “credibility” feel somewhat grounded. Anyway, I don’t really trust a single signal.