I look at the project "trustworthy or not," and now it feels more like a habit, not some innate talent.

I don't check how many stars it has on GitHub; I first look at the commits: Are people making long-term changes? Are issues being responded to? Are key modifications explained?
Then I look at the audit report; the focus isn't on whether it "passed," but whether the scope is clearly defined, if known issues are left unresolved, and if the team is genuinely fixing problems later.
When upgrading multi-signature, don't just listen to "multi-signature is very secure"; you need to see who the signers are, what the threshold is, and whether the logic can be unilaterally changed.
Recently, the wave of privacy coins/mixing coins has been quite intense; honestly, when the compliance boundaries are unclear, you need to keep a close eye on permissions and upgrade paths. Otherwise, what seems like a technical issue could end up as governance that can be changed at will.
Anyway, I’d rather go slower, flipping through a few more pages of on-chain records and repos, and sleep more peacefully.