Recently, project teams have been posting GitHub updates and releasing audit reports, and they also casually switch to multi-signature upgrades. If a newcomer wants to judge whether something is "trustworthy or not," I think they should not be distracted by flashy appearances. GitHub isn't about how many stars it has; honestly, it's about whether the updates are consistent, whether there are clear change logs, and whether the upgrade can be linked to on-chain actions. Don't say "security upgrade" while secretly changing the contract address. Also, don't just screenshot the conclusion page of the audit report; flip to the issues list: Are high-risk issues truly fixed? Is it just a word game like "known risks accepted" (a pretty advanced form of self-comfort)? Multi-signature isn't a talisman either—who are the signers, what are the thresholds, is there a time lock? At least you can see whether the project team is more afraid of being hacked or of you discovering something. Recently, there's been talk about rate cut expectations, the US dollar index moving in sync with risk assets. I personally don't believe in the idea that "macro tailwinds make everything safe." The more emotional you get, the easier it is to overlook these details… I need to review and reflect first.