When evaluating whether a project is “trustworthy or not,” I usually don’t look at the PPT first; I check GitHub and audits. GitHub isn’t about how many stars it has (that kind of thing can be faked too); I look at whether the core repository is continuously reviewed, whether the issues contain serious back-and-forth, and whether PRs related to upgrades explain “why these changes were made.” Don’t let the logos on audit reports fool you—focus on whether the problems found have clear remediation records, especially around “permissions/upgrade.”

Upgrading multi-signature is even more critical: how many keys there are, who holds them, whether there is a delay timelock for activation, and whether you can emergency pause but not arbitrarily change the logic. To put it plainly: the fewer people who can modify the code and the more transparent the process is, the more peacefully you can sleep. Recently, there’s been a lot of compliance debate around privacy coins/mixing, but it’s the same logic: when the boundaries are unclear, it all ends up being covered by permissions and processes as a safeguard.

I’m going to tidy up the authorizations on a few old contracts first, so I don’t get hit by an upgrade one day while I’m still dreaming.