Lately, I've become a bit numb to the opportunities on the chain, and I just realized that "credibility" is something even beginners can somewhat assess. On GitHub, I look at three things: whether there are long-term active contributors, not just one person having fun; whether there are real issues and fix records in the issues; and whether there are discussion traces on upgrade-related PRs. Don't treat audit reports as gospel; first check the conclusions and high-risk items to see if the team has actually made changes and whether those changes are perfunctory. Also, regarding multi-signature upgrades, in simple terms, it's about "who can control the contract," whether the number of signatures is sufficient, and if just a few people can make decisions—that's more practical than fancy roadmaps. Recently, with the kind of inflation and studio-driven spirals in chain games, if the project team’s first reaction is to instantly change parameters without transparency, I’ll just unfollow them... Conversely, if I see their upgrade process is open, slower but traceable, I’ll quietly follow again. For now, at least don’t entrust your fate to a single button.