Just finished translating a project's GitHub and audit report, and I casually looked at its upgrade multi-signature as well, and the more I looked, the more it felt like looking in a mirror: the code updates are quite frequent but mostly small fixes and patches, the audit was done diligently, but I don’t recognize half of the signers on the multi-signature side... That made me a bit hesitant. Recently, the kind of “inflation + studio + coin price spiral” crashes in blockchain games have been trending again, and it feels like many times it’s not due to coding errors, but rather permissions and incentives being too loose.

I have a simple trick to gauge the “trustworthiness” of a “rookie version”: check on GitHub if it’s maintained long-term and not just rushed before token issuance; don’t just look at “pass” in the audit, but also see if there are clearly unresolved issues and re-audits; for upgrade multi-signatures, focus on whether the threshold is sufficient, whether the signers are independent, and if they can be replaced temporarily. Basically, the more centralized the permissions and the vaguer the explanations, the more I treat it as a high-risk asset for now.