When reviewing a project contract, don't rush to look at the K-line first, focus on three things: whether GitHub is active, whether the audit report looks legitimate, and whether upgrade permissions are multi-signature. If GitHub hasn't had a commit in half a year and there are still a bunch of forks hanging around, it's basically "neglected"; don't just look at the cover logo of the audit, search for keywords: owner, upgrade, delegatecall, and see if the audit clearly explains these permissions. For multi-signature upgrades, don't just write "3/5", check who the signers are, whether they are the same company's aliases, and if they can replace the implementation contract at any time. Recently, the community has been arguing about privacy coins/mixing compliance, but I care more about whether the project clearly states permissions and risks. Honestly, transparency at least helps prevent the worst, while unlimited authorization + black-box upgrades are the most dangerous.