I'm now checking whether the project team is actually working, rather than just looking at how beautiful their PPTs are. I prefer to look at the treasury expenditures and whether the milestones match up, right? Spending money isn't a sin, but it should be explainable: for example, development/auditing/ecosystem subsidies—can you see the corresponding deliverables on-chain, such as version updates, bug fixes, and collaborations, instead of always saying "next week"? I'm most afraid of those who spend treasury funds very diligently, but their milestones are always stuck in the roadmap.

Recently, retail investors have been complaining about miner/validator income, MEV, and fairness in ordering, and I can understand that too... To put it simply, if you're building infrastructure, don't just draw a pie chart of "fair ordering." At least clarify how you're going to do it, when it will go live, and who will verify it. Otherwise, it just sounds like PR talk.

There's really too much information, which makes me a bit anxious. My current filtering method is very crude: I only look at three things—treasury flow over the past 30 days, code/product update frequency, and whether they respond positively (rather than just playing dead) when controversies arise. That's it for now—don't get carried away by the hype.