These years of investing in crypto projects, the way of viewing things has indeed changed.

Initially, the focus was on "how much it can rise," but gradually shifted to more realistic questions—when the market cools down, does this project have the ability to save itself? Or, how long can it last?

It sounds very realistic, even a bit cold-blooded, but this is what multiple bear markets have taught us. After seeing too many zeroing-out cases, you realize one thing: surviving is always more important than flying high.

So when analyzing a project, I no longer care much about the long-term vision or how perfect the business model is. Anyone can talk about those things in a bull market. Now I only look at one dimension: if the market turns downward, at which point will this system first fail to hold?

Many yield-bearing protocols are essentially a capital relay game. New money enters quickly, high yields attract investors, and the ecosystem prospers. But once growth slows, yields decline, confidence wavers, and the subsequent chain reaction often snowballs. This is an old routine.

In contrast, it’s worth observing projects whose core assets do not rely entirely on high APR to support the scene. The key isn’t whether the white paper describes application scenarios, but whether real, repeated usage can be seen on-chain—rather than funds just flowing in and out of liquidity pools without genuine demand for applications.

This point is crucial. When new funds start to slow down, assets with real use cases can form a foundational demand to support the system. Conversely, systems driven solely by high yields and new funds tend to collapse very quickly.

So my current approach is to focus on: how active is the existing capital, whether the circulation and usage of core tokens are dispersed, and whether there is a real trading demand established within the ecosystem. These indicators can more accurately reflect a project’s resilience.

Market sentiment can be deceptive, but data on the chain never lies.