Lately, I've been observing whether project teams are "serious or not," but I actually start by checking the treasury expenditures rather than looking at their self-made milestones... Frankly, where the money is spent is hard to hide. Expenses on development, audits, infrastructure—on-chain traces and outsourced addresses often match up; the most concerning are a bunch of "ecosystem incentives" and "market collaborations," which ultimately circle back to a few familiar wallets. You can tell who’s just pretending by the PFP floor price drops.

Don't just look at the PPTs for milestones; you need to see if they can be verified: Has the contract been updated? Have permissions been tightened? Are bug bounties being claimed? Are governance proposals genuinely progressing? Now we're also talking about interest rate cut expectations, the US dollar index, and risk assets bouncing around together... When macro conditions heat up, many projects tend to package "spending" as "growth" driven by market sentiment. I prefer to look at the books rather than listen to stories.

Next time, I plan to make a simple comparison table of several projects' treasury addresses, dividing them into "verifiable expenses" and "vague expenses." Do you have any indicators that can quickly reveal if someone is just pretending to be busy?