Recently, project teams on the bridge have been posting GitHub links, sharing two audits, and then saying "multi-signature upgraded," which reassures many beginners. But I think it's still worth taking a closer look at the details. GitHub isn't about how many stars it has; first, check if it's maintained by real people: Are there recent commits? Are issues being responded to? Are the key logic parts open source? Don’t just consider the front end being open. Also, don’t judge the audit by the cover logo alone; look for whether there are "fixed/unfixed" statuses, and whether the scope includes cross-chain message verification. As for the multi-signature upgrade, in simple terms, it’s about who has the power to make changes: Are the signers decentralized? Is there a timelock? Who has the emergency pause rights? This stuff is like insurance and a landmine—if set up well, it’s a safety net; if poorly configured, it’s an open backdoor. Recently, people have been complaining about validators extracting MEV and unfair ordering, but I’m more cautious: if on-chain rules can be "optimized," then the bridge’s permissions need to be watched even more closely. Better to be slow by three seconds than to risk a single exploit.