I'm now looking at the project "Trustworthy or Not," and I'm not too concerned about slogans anymore. First, I check out GitHub: it's not about whether I can write code, but whether there's ongoing updates, if people are seriously arguing in issues, if bugs are being properly fixed... Those projects that are long neglected but suddenly have a "major upgrade"—to be honest, I tend to step back a bit.

Audit reports shouldn't be treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card either. Focus on what they didn't cover, whether the team has made changes according to suggestions, and if there was a re-audit after modifications. One more thing: who holds the multi-signature keys for upgrades, what are the thresholds, whether there's a timelock (giving everyone time to react)—these are more reliable than "partner" posters.

Recently, the NFT royalty debate has been as noisy as a marketplace. I believe even more in one principle: only when the incentive structure is clear and the power boundaries are laid out plainly can there be talk of long-term. Anyway, I don't need to be understood; I just don't want to be carried away by emotions.