I'm starting to keep track of a very simple but quite lifesaving thing: when a project releases materials like GitHub, audits, or upgrade multi-signatures to establish credibility, I no longer just look for their existence, but also note my intuition and doubts after reviewing. After a few times, I realized I’m not so easily hypnotized by the phrase "We have audited / Open-sourced"—whether GitHub updates are stagnant, if audit reports only scratch the surface, or if the upgrade permissions are controlled by a group where someone can approve a vote at any time... These may seem dull, but they help break down "I feel it's reliable" into reasons that can be reviewed and analyzed.

By the way, I want to complain about the NFT royalty water wars too—everyone arguing over creator income and liquidity. I just want to say: whether rules can be changed, who can change them, and how they are changed are the ultimate dividing lines between being exploited or not.

Anyway, I’d rather take it slow and not be a psychological counseling client again.