I wonder if the project team is actually working seriously; instead, they don't pay much attention to what they say about "grand narratives," and prefer to focus on auditing government treasury expenditures: where the money is spent, how it's spent, and whether it aligns with the milestones. The worst are those who say they want to build products, but at the same time, the government treasury is busy giving out subsidies, doing co-branded campaigns, and inviting KOLs for a lively show; on-chain ledgers are much more honest than roadshows.

My own small habit is: every time they announce a milestone, I go back and check the transfer flow over the next one or two weeks to see if there are corresponding development, auditing, or infrastructure expenses, or at least reusable asset deposits (like protocol revenue, IP licensing cash flow, etc.). Having these doesn't necessarily mean it's good, but at least the logic makes sense.

Recently, when the funding rate was extreme, everyone in the group was arguing whether it was a reversal or if the bubble was still being squeezed. I just want to see if "people are still working inside the bubble." To be honest, long-term success isn't about talent; it's about some simple habits: regular reconciliation, less speculation, more evidence... Just start with that.