Lately, when I look at projects, I focus on two things: where the treasury funds are spent and whether the milestones are "testable." If the treasury expenditure always just says "ecological incentives/market cooperation," I just brush it off, throw in a few PPT slides, since I’ll assume they’re just trying to keep things going; what really makes me slightly reassured is seeing concrete deliverables, like audit reports, actual bug bounty payouts, or key modules of cross-chain bridges upgraded according to schedule, and they dare to explain reasons for delays.

Now, new L1/L2 projects launch incentives to boost TVL, and old users complain "mining, selling," which doesn’t surprise me either. Honestly, without milestone constraints, it all ends up being just user acquisition. For someone like me who’s just holding on a bridge, the biggest fear is black swan events, so I get creeped out by phrases like "simplicity equals safety" or "simplicity equals growth"—I see simplicity as a trap. For now, I’d rather go slow than treat the treasury as an ATM.