Recently, when I look at projects, I don’t really read PPTs anymore. I mostly browse GitHub and audit reports—mainly to gauge “trustworthiness.” To be blunt, greener GitHub doesn’t automatically mean better. I’ll first check whether people are continuously reviewing, whether there are issues and whether anyone responds, and whether key changes are explained. Projects that have been dead quiet for half a year and then suddenly push a major update make me raise an eyebrow.

Also, don’t just look at the four words “audited” on an audit report. What I care more about is whether the high-risk issues have actually been fixed, whether any remnants remain, and whether the audit scope excluded the core contracts. Upgrades and multi-signature setups are more practical: can the contract be upgraded arbitrarily, who the signers are, and whether there’s a timelock (so the market has time to react). These matter more than “the code looks really nice” in deciding whether you end up winning or getting taught a lesson.

I understand why retail investors have been complaining about MEV and unfair ordering lately. In the end, whoever has control over ordering on-chain is more like the market maker. For someone like me who has done LP, the strategy is still the same: stay alive, and if possible, avoid protocols that have permissions that are too powerful.