Recently, when project teams post GitHub links, audit reports, and add a picture saying "Multi-signature upgrades are very secure," my first reaction isn't whether to trust it or not, but to ask myself: how much can these things actually help beginners judge credibility? Frankly, GitHub isn't about just looking at stars; it's about digging a little deeper into commit history, whether there's long-term maintenance, and if there are explanations for key contract changes; audit reports shouldn't just be looked at for the conclusion page—first find the sections labeled "Unresolved/Accepted Risks," as many pitfalls are hidden there. The same goes for multi-signatures—who the signers are might be hard to understand, but at least check the threshold, whether upgrades can be done at any time, and if there's a timelock... I need to be reminded: don't be hypnotized by the word "transparency"—transparency doesn't mean impossible to do evil, it just makes it easier to catch. By the way, recently, the "attention mining" of social mining and fan tokens—this idea that "attention equals mining"—the more I look at it, the more it seems like noise is being packaged as an indicator, and on-chain evidence is actually becoming scarcer. That's all for now; I’ll slowly learn to be skeptical.