In the past, when I looked at whether a project was "trustworthy or not," I mainly focused on the candlestick charts and who was shouting the loudest in the group... Now I tend to check GitHub and audit reports first, at least to see if someone has been actively working on it long-term, and if the commit history isn't just piled up in a day or two. Don't be superstitious about audits either; having a report doesn't mean there are no pitfalls. I usually focus on two points: whether issues are categorized by severity, and whether they have actually been fixed in the end (don't just settle for "acknowledged"). As for upgrade permissions, multi-signature is quite important. Basically, don’t let one person make changes whenever they want; it’s best to have multi-party signatures plus a delay, giving everyone time to react. Recently, with extreme funding rates, the group has been arguing whether to reverse or keep squeezing the bubble, so I’m even lazier to guess. I just want to understand if it’s possible for rules to be changed in the middle of the night, have a sip of cold brew, and leave the rest to fate.