It's a great idea, but unfortunately I'm not good at discussing this topic because I'm not particularly good at Web3 investment research. Or rather, I prefer to study things I enjoy, such as BTCFi, on chain brokers (DeBroker), RWA, or permissionless prediction. These broad directions are something I really enjoy researching, but I rarely focus on the details of a particular project. However, I am now planning to delve deeper into some projects. In my personal opinion, my investment research approach may not be very professional. Let's start by discussing the background of this project, including the founder, founding team, leading investment institution, and behind the scenes experts. @ RootDataCrypto provides good data in this area, which is already a high point that ordinary people can reach. In addition, for those who are slightly more advanced, you can go to the English section to find the founder's shadow, including LinkedIn, Reddit, and Medium, which are good places for data collection. But can the founder necessarily determine the success or failure of a project? Not necessarily, so besides the founding team, it also depends on the track where the project is located, whether the track has been falsified, or whether the track is currently very popular, such as AI in the cryptocurrency field, permissionless predictions, which are very promising and have successful experience in the Web2 field. This track is the one that I pay the most attention to, while RWA, DeFi, and BTCFi are the ones that I pay less attention to. On the one hand, the track is not mature, for example, many project parties in RWA cannot explain what they are doing. On the other hand, the competition is too fierce. For example, there have been too few DeFi that have made it to the market recently, except for Pandle, which should not be many. The competition in this field is very fierce, unless there is top-level resource support, such as large public chains or top exchanges that explicitly support it. But in fact, there are also pitfalls here. We only finished talking about Lista last week. Lista represents various good things, a good team, sufficient funds, and it is also Binance's first BNB to support interest on the chain. However, the price of Lista is hard to describe. Who do you think I should reason with? Then there are the tracks that have been counterfeited or are difficult to break through in the short term, such as the BTCFi track. Everyone knows that BTC is a good thing and is thinking about BTC, but what is going on and off is BTC's on chain lending. Where is there so much demand? So there are very few projects involving BTC lending that can emerge even after being listed on Binance. Most of them are covered in chicken feathers. After reviewing the founder, team, institution, and track, the technical level is already at hand. However, this is actually the most difficult part. Many users may not realize that even projects on Binance and Coinbase have poor technical skills, and some of them are outsourced. My development team in Shanghai used to do this, and this phenomenon still exists today. Of course, some projects are on a tight schedule, so outsourcing some of the engineering acceleration is normal. The next step is to consider it as a market maker. Although market makers have different methods and may have several sets of ideas, generally each one has their own style to follow. Familiarity with the style of market makers may be a shortcut. I almost forgot that community is very important, and it is already an open secret that community support is needed for cryptocurrency listing. Sometimes, based on the performance of the community, some people can guess which type of exchange it is targeting. In fact, by comparing the top leaders, we can get a good idea. Generally speaking, the more active the community is, the higher the probability of going to the big exchange, the more exposure the top leaders give, the stronger the continuity, and the more critical period it is. Either listing or shipping. Of course, there is also a part to do for reputation and brand building, but this is slightly less common. What else What about it? Another thing is advanced. It's not easy for ordinary friends to reach, such as sharing information gaps within the industry. In fact, 80% of the content can be completed in just two sentences, but it's too difficult to explain and clarify it with just these two sentences.