I see the project’s “credibility” basically boils down to three things: GitHub, audit reports, and upgrading multi-signature permissions. On GitHub, I don’t look closely at code details (even if I did, I might not fully understand); I just look at whether updates are ongoing, whether someone is seriously reviewing, and whether there are explanations for any major changes. For the kind of project that goes on a frenzy of commits for a while and then suddenly goes quiet, I’ll put a question mark next to it first. Also don’t be overly trusting of audit reports—having a report doesn’t mean it’s safe. What I care about more is what the audit scope covers, whether known issues have been fixed, and whether the team has added follow-up explanations afterward. Upgrading multi-signatures is even more grounded in reality: how many keys there are, who holds them, whether the rules can be changed with a one-click action, and whether there’s a timelock—at least then I know what the “worst-case scenario” is.

Recently, staking again, shared security, and stacking rewards have all been criticized as nesting dolls, and in response I actually want to get clear on who holds the upgrade authority. No matter how high the reward stacking is, if the underlying can be changed at any time, that doesn’t feel reliable… What I fear most isn’t just losing money—I fear losing control: money can be lost and I can still accept it, but if the rules suddenly change, I won’t even know how I lost in the first place. Anyway, first get the permissions and the process figured out clearly, and I’ll sleep a bit more peacefully.