Lately, when checking out projects, are they really working hard? I’d rather look at the treasury expenditures first… Honestly, where the money is spent is more truthful than a PowerPoint presentation. The most concerning are those “milestones” that look full on paper, but on-chain you only see transactions to unfamiliar multi-signature addresses or long-term inactivity, relying on the community to fill in the progress with their imagination.

A more straightforward approach is: the spending pace matches the delivery milestones, such as audit fees/infrastructure costs before and after releases, and in the ecosystem, you can see small but continuous funding, rather than a sudden large “market expense” that’s just slapped on.

Recently, the incentives and points on the testnet have been quite noisy, everyone guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens… I think it’s better not to be led by “expectations,” but to check if they’ve clearly explained the incentive budget, rules, and distribution frequency, whether the treasury has allocated corresponding funds. Without these, it seems more like a spur-of-the-moment decision.

There’s too much information, which makes me a bit anxious. I now use a simple method to filter: only look at three things — treasury flows, version update records, and verifiable links of third-party audits/partnerships. The rest of the hype, I’ll just treat as background noise.