I usually don't look at the K-line when evaluating a project’s "credibility" first. I focus on three things: GitHub, audit reports, and multi-signature upgrades. Don’t just look at the stars on GitHub; check if it’s still active recently, who is reviewing, if bug fixes are merged within a day or two. If it’s relying on one person’s enthusiasm long-term, I’ll immediately question it. Don’t be fooled by the logos in audit reports; focus on whether there’s a clear scope/version number, whether issues are “fixed and rechecked,” and whether upgrade-related aspects are monitored. Those with a bunch of “low-risk/informational items” but only a brief mention of upgrade permissions basically miss the pain points. Multi-signature is even more critical: how many keys, who holds them, is there a timelock, can the logic be changed or assets transferred with one click? If permissions are too broad, don’t talk to me about “decentralization.” Recently, AI agent automated trading is hyped up, but I’m more interested in how it handles failed trades, how it recovers if the nonce gets messed up, and whether there are replay or signature pitfalls. The reason I stay calm is a habit: before I want to go all-in, I force myself to review the contract’s admin/upgrade access points and multi-signature setup. After reviewing, if I still want to buy, then I consider it. Anyway, I do it this way first.