Lately, when checking whether a project is actually working, I’ve been more focused on reviewing the treasury spending trajectory. It’s not about how much they’ve spent, but the order and rhythm of the spending: first pouring a bunch of market budgets, sponsoring conferences, that kind of thing, with milestones still stuck at “coming soon,” I get a bit cautious; on the other hand, those that gradually roll out audits, infrastructure, documentation, and node subsidies, even if not lively, feel more like they’re seriously submitting their assignments.

I also look at whether their milestones are “verifiable”: on-chain, you can see contract deployments, parameter changes, governance proposal progress, or at least match it with repository updates/testnet data. Basically, it’s like checking the packaging order—whether the details are correct, whether the timeline is coherent, you can tell at a glance.

Recently, with some places raising taxes and changing compliance directions, deposit and withdrawal expectations become more sensitive. When the project suddenly ramps up “user acquisition budgets,” I tend to see it as emotional hedging; conversely, those that clearly explain their runway (how long their funds last) and deliver milestones monthly make me feel more at ease. Anyway, I’d rather be a bit slower than end up constantly paying the “slippage tax.”