This morning, watching the sea, waves roll back one wave after another, and I suddenly thought of the “office-style hair-pulling” during the recent airdrop season… The task platform’s anti-bot/anti-sybil measures keep getting stricter and stricter. Once the points leaderboard is pulled up, everyone is competing like they’re clocking in. Put plainly, in the end, what you still get is a bunch of “trust”: whether the project is actually reliable or not.

As a newbie like me, when I look at GitHub, I won’t read the code in detail—I just focus on three things: whether the updates are continuous (don’t be lively for just one or two times and then disappear), whether multiple people are raising issues/fixing bugs (if it’s just one person hyping themselves up, I get a bit panicky), and whether the key changes are documented clearly (I’ll directly put a question mark on that kind of “misc fixes”). Also, don’t treat the audit report as a talisman—I’ll check whether it lists high-risk issues, and whether the final status is “fixed” or “accepting the risk,” and whether the auditing institution is the kind of place that has at least heard its name before. Otherwise, it’s just paying for a PDF.

The most critical part is upgrading multi-signature: who can change the contract, change parameters, and move funds? I’ll look at whether the signers are distributed, whether the threshold is reasonable, and whether there’s a delay (giving people time to react)—the more it looks like “one person is in charge,” the colder I feel inside. The conclusion is: don’t expect to see the truth at a glance—go through all the “process traces” you can verify, and the rest… you all think which one is easiest to overlook?