Recently, I've seen a bunch of people use ETF capital flow and U.S. stock market risk appetite to explain crypto price movements, as if they have a crystal ball... I'm actually more concerned about the project's own "credibility" and how to evaluate it, especially for bridges, where failures are mostly due to details.

Novices really want a quick glance: don't just look at stars on GitHub, check if there have been continuous commits recently, whether the core library is just a bunch of outsourced renaming; for audit reports, don't just look at "audited," first review the conclusions and whether high-risk issues have been clearly fixed, I’d be suspicious if too much time has passed. Upgrading permissions is even more critical: who holds the multi-signature, what are the thresholds, is there a timelock (at least giving people reaction time), otherwise a single upgrade can change the logic, and funds in the bridge can disappear instantly. I can tolerate small slippage costs, but opaque permissions are something I really don’t dare to rush. Taking it slow is actually more convenient.