18600u is the money I lost on Dusk with a “buy first, research later” move. It wasn’t that I didn’t research—it's that the order was wrong. I acted first, then tried to find reasons for it.
The reason I placed that buy was simple: the price looked low, the chart looked like a bottom, and around that time people in the plaza were shouting “it can’t drop any further.” The emotions arrived first, and then I placed the order. After I bought, I only started “researching”: reading announcements, breaking down the mechanics, looking at the data—but at that point, the research wasn’t research anymore. It was adding supporting evidence for an action that had already happened. I specifically looked for materials that supported the buy: active development, yes; high pledge ratio, yes; partnership roster, yes. When I saw risks, I jumped over them: fragmented liquidity, skip; Dusk Trade hadn’t launched yet, skip; unlock pressure, skip. The more I researched, the more I felt like I was “right to buy.”
Three months later, the price was even lower. Every piece of evidence I added was still there, and the price didn’t improve just because my evidence chain got better. I cut my losses and exited: 18600u.
This money taught me: research must happen before the decision, or it’s only valuable in theory. Research after the decision isn’t called research—it’s self-soothing. Its output isn’t judgment; it’s an excuse. When the order is reversed, the deeper the research, the more firmly you cling to being wrong. Pre-buy research is about finding risk. Post-buy research is about finding comfort. Same action, different position—completely different nature.
So here are my current rules: before buying, write out a full page of reasons for not buying. If you can’t fill a page, you’re not allowed to buy. Research is for exclusion, not confirmation.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
The reason I placed that buy was simple: the price looked low, the chart looked like a bottom, and around that time people in the plaza were shouting “it can’t drop any further.” The emotions arrived first, and then I placed the order. After I bought, I only started “researching”: reading announcements, breaking down the mechanics, looking at the data—but at that point, the research wasn’t research anymore. It was adding supporting evidence for an action that had already happened. I specifically looked for materials that supported the buy: active development, yes; high pledge ratio, yes; partnership roster, yes. When I saw risks, I jumped over them: fragmented liquidity, skip; Dusk Trade hadn’t launched yet, skip; unlock pressure, skip. The more I researched, the more I felt like I was “right to buy.”
Three months later, the price was even lower. Every piece of evidence I added was still there, and the price didn’t improve just because my evidence chain got better. I cut my losses and exited: 18600u.
This money taught me: research must happen before the decision, or it’s only valuable in theory. Research after the decision isn’t called research—it’s self-soothing. Its output isn’t judgment; it’s an excuse. When the order is reversed, the deeper the research, the more firmly you cling to being wrong. Pre-buy research is about finding risk. Post-buy research is about finding comfort. Same action, different position—completely different nature.
So here are my current rules: before buying, write out a full page of reasons for not buying. If you can’t fill a page, you’re not allowed to buy. Research is for exclusion, not confirmation.
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
