I look at whether a project is doing things seriously, and recently I focus on two things: how the treasury funds are spent and how milestones are delivered. To put it plainly, treasury spending shouldn't only be about "operations/marketing"; it's better if it aligns with specific outputs: audit reports, testnet data, bug bounty programs, documentation updates, ecological partnerships landing, otherwise it's just using funds as a life extension. Milestones shouldn't be written as vision PPTs; I'm more concerned with whether there are timelines, responsible persons, acceptance criteria, whether they dare to explain reasons for delays, and whether they break down the next version into smaller deliveries. Recently, the "profit stacking" of pledging/sharing security has been criticized as a copycat; I don't take sides. Anyway, first see if the treasury has paid for risks: whether there is a security budget, emergency plans, compensation pools, rather than just making empty promises. For interactions, I just count costs—saving one signature each time, so be it.