To see if the project team is working seriously, I’m too lazy to listen to their stories; first, look at how the treasury spends money. Money is spent on "verifiable" milestones, such as code updates, audits, post-launch activity and retention, key integrations—this kind of spending can be verified on-chain, in repositories, or through announcements; if money is spent on marketing, KOLs, various conference posters, and then progress always says "next week," then it's basically just prolonging their own survival.

Another detail: the spending rhythm. A diligent team will unlock funds in phases, with staged acceptance; they prefer to slow down rather than spend recklessly. If they start transferring large amounts upfront, give vague explanations, and their budget sheets look like PPT slides, I’ll just reduce my position first and not gamble on their integrity.

Recently, everyone has been complaining about miner/validator income, MEV, and unfair ordering, which can also be used as a filter: if a project truly cares about retail user experience, they will clearly define "ordering/fairness" milestones instead of just saying "we are researching." Next time, I will directly consider "treasury flow + milestone verifiability" as a pre-entry check. Do you have any other quick ways to judge whether the project team is actually working?