Lately, when I check whether the project team is really working seriously, I end up looking at the treasury outflows first: where the money goes, and whether it’s spent in a proper, rule-abiding way. Flowery, over-the-top milestone statements don’t amount to much—on-chain, the most honest thing is “who can spend the money, and how they spend it.” Is multi-sig just a prop? Is the budget basically a single transfer to some “service provider,” and then there’s no follow-up? I’ll keep an eye on cases like that.

To put it plainly, it feels much more reliable when you can break expenditures into several tranches and, each time, align them with a deliverable that can be verified (such as going live, an audit, a buyback bug bounty, and so on). The whole points/tasks setup during airdrop season also leaves me baffled—the stricter the anti-sybil measures, the more everyone starts to look like they’re clocking in at work… But if treasury money really has to be spent on “getting things done,” at least don’t spend it only on user acquisition and operations.

One more reminder: I treat “simplicity” as a trap—wording like “one-click funding” and “emergency permissions” hides pitfalls behind it in 8 out of 10 cases.