Lately, when looking at projects, am I serious about doing the work? I actually focus more on how the treasury spends: not on how much ecosystem development they claim to do, but on whether the cash flow seems like it's "being pushed forward with a plan." For example, releasing funds only after milestones are reached, breaking down the budget into detailed parts, and whether the records on-chain or multi-signature announcements match what was done and who did what. I tend to be more patient with this. The worst are those that transfer funds one by one with vague notes, then suddenly come up with a "strategic partnership" at the end of the month to brush it off... Basically, treating the treasury as operational funds to burn as they please.

I’m actually a bit behind on the miner/validator income, MEV, and fair ordering stuff. A few days ago, I just realized everyone in the group was criticizing retail investors being squeezed out. I thought it was just emotional posts. But then I thought about it and it makes sense: if the project team truly cares about the long term, they will spend money on things that reduce friction, not just on liquidity pulls and short-term KPIs. Anyway, I’m now more cautious with hedging. For projects with chaotic treasury spending, even if my position is small, I can’t sleep well.