Lately, I've been paying close attention to whether projects are serious or not, but I actually started by reviewing the treasury expenditures and milestones, rather than listening to the loud claims. Where is the money spent: on development, security audits, infrastructure—things that are "invisible but essential"—or on a bunch of marketing collaborations, KOLs, offline shows... Honestly, the expenditure structure is more honest than the PPT. As for milestones, don't just write "Q3 launch"; it's better if they can match on-chain submissions, testnets, bug fixes—evidence that isn't just a pie-in-the-sky calendar.

These days, the community is again arguing over privacy coins/mixing and the boundaries of compliance, and the emotions are quite torn. I think there's no need to rush into taking sides; first, see how the team handles it: whether they improve documentation, adjust risk controls, add alerts, or just pretend to be dead until the hype passes.

What I regret isn't the outcome, but that I saw the treasury start to waste money recklessly and still stubbornly held on. Anyway, my approach remains based on volatility—if the work is reliable, give it more time; if not, leave it for the next opportunity.