Lately, when I look at projects' "credibility," I focus on three things: Is there really someone working on GitHub, does the audit report address the pain points, and who is clicking the buttons for multi-signature upgrades. To put it simply, can we clarify who's responsible before something goes wrong.

I'm a bit wary of GitHub repositories that only update the README and suddenly have a bunch of empty commits; the same goes for audits—just posting a logo without clear risk items and fix records basically means it wasn't really audited. Multi-signature is more straightforward: if the signers are a bunch of anonymous accounts with especially high permissions, I’d rather take my time crossing the bridge, even if the fees are higher, just to buy peace of mind.

Recently, there’s been talk about increasing taxes or tightening compliance in certain areas. I found that when expectations for deposits and withdrawals tighten, people are more easily comforted by phrases like "we are fully compliant" or "we have been audited"... If I hadn’t taken a closer look at the multi-signature process and upgrade paths, I might have really mistaken "credibility" for "good-sounding." For now, better to be a little more suspicious—it's not shameful.