I'm currently looking at the project "Trustworthy or Not," and I really don't think it sounds that good. Instead, I start by checking GitHub and audits. On GitHub, don't just look at stars; mainly check if updates are continuous, if changes have been reviewed by someone, and if key parameters can be activated on-chain with a single change; those that haven't moved in half a year but suddenly make a bunch of core logic changes all at once make me a bit uneasy. As for audit reports, don't just look at the cover saying "Audited"; dig into the conclusions and unresolved issues: whether high or medium risks have been addressed, or if they just wrote "accept the risk," which basically means leaving a ticking time bomb.

And regarding multi-signature upgrades, many people overlook: how many signers are involved, what the threshold is, whether the signers are decentralized, and if there's a timelock (giving the market time to react). These are more practical than just writing about a "decentralized vision." Recently, everyone is anxious about staking unlocks and token unlock schedules, but I'm actually more worried that the project team might conveniently upgrade permissions before or after unlocks... If you want my advice: it's okay if you can't read code, but at least understand these three things: who can change the rules, how long it takes for changes to take effect, and whether there are records of changes. That way, you can avoid paying unnecessary tuition.