Lately, when reviewing projects, I no longer chase after explanations; there are too many "we will do / are doing / will release soon," which essentially means accepting randomness. The only thing I can do is break down the credibility and take a look. First, check on GitHub whether someone is truly maintaining it: update frequency, whether issues have responses, whether key changes are just a bunch of copy-paste; also, don't just look at the "pass" in the audit report—I care more about whether high-risk items have clear fixes, whether rechecks have been done, and whether the scope missed the core contracts. Upgrading multi-signature is more straightforward: how many keys, who holds them, whether there's a time lock—at least don't shout about decentralization while allowing a single person to modify pool parameters. Recently, privacy coins/mixers and compliance have been heated discussions; I prefer "rules written clearly," even if it’s slower, rather than suddenly cutting everything off one day while LPs are still idling in the pool.