Right now, I see three main things when evaluating a project’s "credibility": GitHub, audit reports, and multi-signature upgrades. Don’t just look at stars and commit counts on GitHub; I’ll click in to see if the recent changes revolve around core logic, if there are long-term maintainers responding to issues, and whether the code looks like it was hastily assembled. Also, don’t treat audit reports as a talisman; focus on the scope of the audit, modules not covered, and whether high-risk issues have been seriously addressed—don’t just settle for a “fixed” note.

Upgrades and multi-signature schemes are more practical; frankly, you’re buying the risk premium of “who can change the rules.” Check the number of signers, the threshold, who the signers are, whether they can be replaced, and if there’s a timelock (giving you reaction time). Recently, some have complained that on-chain data tools and tagging systems are a bit laggy or even misleading, so I prefer to review these basic details myself—taking it slow feels more reliable, anyway rushing often leads to mistakes.