When evaluating what underpins a project’s “credibility,” I usually start with GitHub. It’s not about whether there are many stars—it’s about whether changes have been reviewed, whether key parameters that were modified are explained, and whether, when people push back or question them in issues, someone replies seriously. Then I look at the audit reports. Don’t just focus on “passed”; look for whether the threat model is clearly laid out, which problems are truly considered fixed, and which ones are merely “accepting the risk.” Upgrading permissions matters even more: who the signers are in a multi-signature setup, what the threshold is, and whether you can change the implementation contract at will. In plain terms, this decides whether you’re actually using the protocol—or just using a remote control.

Recently, social mining and fan tokens have been hot again. Even attention can be considered “mining,” but I think the other way around: giving out coins just for posting, while a small change to the upgrade multi-signature can alter the rules. The “mined” attention might be someone else’s exit liquidity. Either way, I’d rather move slowly now—read and understand the permission structure clearly before taking action.