Right now, when I look at whether a project is serious about doing things, I actually pay less attention to the PPT and more to how the treasury funds are spent and whether the milestones match up: for example, if they need to do cross-chain/bridge-related work, do they first allocate money for audits, monitoring, bug bounties? Or do they take the main part of the treasury and spend it on "market cooperation" or "consultant fees"—things that are just superficial... Honestly, the more detailed the ledger is, the more willing I am to see the delivery timelines, responsible persons, and acceptance criteria laid out clearly, and the more willing I am to keep tracking the experience.

Recently, hardware wallets are out of stock, and phishing links are everywhere. It’s during times like these that you can really see if the project team takes user security seriously: whether they keep up with details like official website entry points, signature prompts, and fake domain warnings. I can save on transaction fees by choosing routes, but security is something I really can’t cut corners on. Never mind, I won’t discuss who’s good or bad; I’ll just continue to evaluate projects based on this standard.