I’ve been watching the gas for a while, and I noticed some project teams are wildly throwing money around on operations and maintenance before and around the unlocking period—that’s actually pretty interesting. To be honest, if you’re trying to judge whether a team is really doing serious work, just looking at the surface-level milestones isn’t really enough. Some teams draw roadmaps like science-fiction novels, but once the on-chain data comes out—wallets show net outflows, and all contract interactions are done by bots—then basically it’s just riding the hype. On the other hand, teams that quietly fix bugs, optimize contract costs, and whose gas consumption matches your expectations? Those are the ones that look like they’re actually getting work done.

Recently, I’ve been getting a bit dizzy from the wave of public opinion tying ETF fund flows to how US stocks move in sync. Anyway, I’m used to it: for every rise or fall, someone will find a reason. The core is still whether the project itself has “hard evidence” actions—like developers continuously submitting code, and treasury spending details matching the roadmap. Don’t just listen to big claims.

By the way, I have a bad habit: I treat something simple like a trap. The more obvious and easy-to-understand the “good news” is, the more I need to dig one layer deeper into on-chain data—there could be a hidden landmine somewhere.