Lately, I've been looking at projects labeled "trustworthy or not," but I don't really care how beautiful their PPT slides are... First, check GitHub: it's not about how sophisticated the code is, but about the update frequency, who is submitting PRs, and whether there are a bunch of repositories with renamed or rebranded projects; then look at the audit reports. The focus isn't on the phrase "passed/not found issues," but on what scope was written, whether known risks have been acknowledged by them. Don't take a last year's audit report as a talisman. Upgrading multi-signature is even more critical: who are the signers, what is the threshold, and can the bridge logic be changed at any time? Basically, where is the "exit switch"? Recently, with extreme funding rates, there's debate in the group about whether to reverse or continue squeezing the bubble. My feeling is that the more lively it gets, the more we should return to these fundamental things. And one more thing: I see simplicity as a trap—phrases like "it's been audited, it's multi-signed" sound reassuring, but they can easily make people relax their vigilance.