I'm checking whether the project is actually working now, and I really don't pay much attention to their vision talks anymore. Just compare the treasury expenditures + milestones to see if they match. The money spent is either on development, audits, node deployment/eco-partnerships that can be settled, or on various "market" pump-and-dump schemes... Frankly, the spending rhythm doesn't match the delivery rhythm, most likely they're just messing around.

I used to think that the less the treasury spends, the more stable it is, but I found some projects are ridiculously frugal, with delayed milestones, and on-chain activity looks like an electrocardiogram... Conversely, those that pay fixed development fees, audit costs, and bounties every month, with clear transactions, tend to have more consistent updates.

Recently, everyone has been complaining about validator income, MEV, and fair ordering. I also feel strongly: if a team claims to be fair, but the treasury keeps funding "mysterious market-making/node collaborations" and is vague about the ordering mechanism, I first assume they’re leaving themselves an escape route. Don’t trust stories, just look at the settlements, that’s the way to go.