As a slow-to-warm-up newbie, I don't really look at slogans when judging whether a project is "reliable" or not. I first check GitHub and audit reports. Although I can't understand the code either, I can get a sense of the attitude: whether updates are sporadic, if issues have responses, whether the audit clearly states high-risk items, and ultimately whether changes have been made... Some reports are like staged photos, and the remediation section is glossed over; I become a bit cautious.

Upgrading multi-signature is also very important. Basically, who can change the rules with one click. Whether the number of signers is sufficiently decentralized, if there is a timelock (giving you reaction time), and whether emergency permissions are too broad—these make me feel more at ease than just "issuing incentives to attract TVL." Recently, a wave of incentives for new L1/L2s, and old users complain about mining, selling, I understand. Anyway, I will wait until they clarify the upgrade permissions and audit follow-up before engaging. I'm off to sleep, that's all for now.