To see whether the project team is really doing serious work, I’m not even looking at the PPT for now—I’m first looking at how the treasury is spent: spending money slowly doesn’t necessarily mean laziness, and spending it quickly doesn’t necessarily mean competence. The key is whether there’s a rhythm of “spend a sum → deliver something that can actually be verified and accepted.” What I fear most is that the budget is written beautifully, and the milestones are all things like “pushing ecosystem cooperation/brand exposure,” while the acceptance criteria are waved through with a single sentence. In other words, basically no one can be held accountable.

There’s also a simple “earthy” method: see whether they proactively include failures in their updates—like a particular integration breaking, or a certain version being delayed. The ones who can lay out the holes and explain what happened are actually the ones who look like they’re truly doing the work. Compared with that, the current “airdrop season + points tasks” are organized like clocking in at work. The stricter the anti–witch measures, the more it feels like an exam. If a project really spends all its energy tweaking the rules to prevent people from farming rewards, then product milestones very easily turn into “we’ll talk about it next week”… I’d rather they make the treasury spending report more solid—at least don’t let the money get spent into a fog.