I’m now checking whether the project is actually doing work—rather than just keeping an eye on “which milestones got posted.” What I care about more is how the treasury money is spent: first, clearly lay out the assumptions—expenses/multisig/collection paths are visible on-chain, and the team won’t label marketing department spending as R&D just to make the numbers fit. For teams that are genuinely doing serious work, the spending cadence is usually fairly stable. Individual transactions also don’t constantly look like “just enough to carry a narrative,” and the money flows toward things that can be verified: audit fees, bounties, infrastructure, and long-term partners. Sometimes you can even line them up with what shows up in the repo/proposals.

On the other hand, for projects that shout milestones loudly but repeatedly route treasury funds to exchanges or a bunch of new addresses… to be blunt, I just assume they’re preparing for “outgoing/liquidation liquidity.” Recently, someone again used ETF fund flows and U.S. stock risk appetite to explain every bit of rise and fall—I see it too. But no matter how hot these macro narratives get, the project’s own treasury friction and where the money goes can’t be faked on-chain.

That’s it for now.