Lately, I've been focusing on projects and don't want to be led around by "narratives" anymore, so I stuck a sticky note on the desk: first check credibility, then look at the story. Beginners reading GitHub don't actually need to understand the code; first see if the updates are managed long-term, if issues have responses, if key upgrades clearly state the risk points; then review the audit reports, don't just look at "pass/no major issues," focus on whether there are high-risk items, whether the fixes have been implemented, and if the auditing agency is the kind that just stamps documents. Also, regarding multi-signature upgrades, in simple terms, it's about "who can control your money," check if the signers are sufficiently decentralized, if the thresholds are reasonable, and if there's a timelock for early reactions. Recently, people have been interpreting ETF fund flows and US stock risk appetite together, but when emotions run high, it's easy to overlook these underlying details... Anyway, I’ll stick to the sticky note approach—taking it slow feels more solid.