Lately, when evaluating whether a project is reliable or not, I’m more focused on how the treasury spends money and how milestones are written. It’s not just about making a pretty roadmap; rather, after the money flows out, there should be corresponding outputs: code submissions, audits, documentation, and implementation of collaborations. Even if there are delays, it’s important to clearly explain why and how to make up for them. Those who burn through the treasury while milestones are always “next month” and respond to community questions with evasions, honestly, just don’t want to seriously do their homework.

Recently, the set of pledge and shared security being criticized as “copy-paste,” I can understand… The layered yields sound very attractive, but if the treasury hasn’t spent on basic security and risk control clearly, and then starts drawing pie-in-the-sky compounding plans, I become very cautious. The information noise is too high; my way of filtering noise is: only look at on-chain expenses and verifiable deliverables. Treat other AMA emotional responses as background noise.