Crypto子棋

《The Ox Came, and the Wolf Came Too》

I took a look at the records of the “Ox came” DEV, and honestly, it’s hard not to find it a bit hard to take: one address, and within a few days it had churned out 6 coins.

After “the ox came” launched, its peak market cap reached around $48.67 million, so the script suddenly seemed to click—keep sending, keep testing, keep copying.

The problem is, there’s only one “ox.” Behind it, there’s a whole line of “cattle and horses.”

Some peaked at several hundred thousand dollars, some at tens of thousands, and some now have only a few tens of thousands left.

This is exactly what Meme is most worth being wary of right now: people used to think they were looking for the next 100x coin, but more and more it feels like they’re participating in the DEV’s low-cost startup incubator.

Issue 10—if only 1 runs, the DEV may already be full;
You buy 10—if 9 get rugged, then even if the 10th spikes a few times, you might still only be breaking even.

What’s even more concerning is that lately all kinds of “helping” and little cliques have started banding together to issue tokens: one group is responsible for coming up with memes, another group is responsible for calling buys/sells, another group is responsible for manufacturing “community consensus,” and in the end, retail investors are the ones providing the most important thing—exiting liquidity.

So don’t see the previous “ox came” who got rich and assume the next one is also an “ox.”

When the ox comes, you can chase and watch.

When the wolf comes, remember to first check who’s doing the shouting.

SNDK Trading Journal: Going Short First, Getting Educated—Then Waking Up Back to Break-Even!

Last night I shorted SNDK around 1744, thinking I’d caught the top. But it turned around and surged to 1827.

After the open I had a hunch it would push higher, but I still moved too fast. Once I entered, I was immediately trapped in a losing position. I didn’t practice what I preach. Shorting above 1800 would’ve been much better—being impatient just gets you hit!

Thankfully, 1827 didn’t hold. Prices then slid back to around 1728. I held the position through the unrealized loss until it returned to break-even. Right now I’m slightly in profit. The money isn’t much, but at least I went through the whole process: when opening the trade I was full of confidence, after getting trapped I started questioning everything about myself—then as soon as I got back to even, I felt like I might actually be something.

Last night, SNDK surged nearly 9% at one point, breaking through a downtrend that had been lasting for two months. This upswing isn’t purely driven by sentiment.

But the short-term price action is definitely too hot: over the past five trading days, it climbed more than 35%. After spiking to 1827 last night, it clearly pulled back.

The fundamentals can be strong, and liquidity/positioning can be extremely crowded at the same time.

Going forward, I’m watching three levels:
1800–1830 is the resistance zone. Only if it can hold there will there be a chance to look at 1900 to 2000.
1680–1700 is the first support. If it breaks, it would signal the acceleration higher is starting to cool down.
1550–1600 is strong support. If sentiment continues to fade, price may return to this area.

This short trade isn’t a bet that SanDisk’s fundamentals are about to collapse. It’s just profit-taking after the consecutive surge.

If price can’t get back above 1800, there’s still room for a pullback in the short term. If there’s a volume-backed breakout above 1830, I’ll reassess the short—can’t turn getting unstuck into obsession just because I managed to break even.

After all, what I fear most is losing money. I can’t afford losses. Going forward, I’ll first protect profits. The direction can stay the same, but my position size can’t be stubborn.

Why does trading volume keep getting smaller, yet the price keeps rising?

When I first entered the market, I simply understood the rise as strong buy pressure: the faster it went up, the more people supposedly believed in it.

Later I learned that price increases don’t always require a lot of buyers—sometimes they only require that nobody is willing to sell.

At the end of a bear market or during weekend trading, liquidity is thin. Small amounts of capital can push the price higher, making the candlesticks look strong and the gainers list look lively. But this kind of rise is more like an elevator suddenly shooting upward: there aren’t many people inside, yet it moves very fast.

In the past, I was most likely to chase during times like this.
Seeing consecutive bullish candles, I thought the main force was starting to accumulate. But when the truly large funds were ready to realize profits, the order book simply couldn’t support it. What took three days to rise fell back within half an hour.

To judge whether a trading cycle is healthy, you can’t look at only the percentage gain. You also need to check whether the volume can sustain, whether the spot market is actually leading, and whether there is sufficient follow-through during pullbacks. If the price makes new highs while trading volume keeps shrinking, yet futures open interest and the funding rate heat up quickly, then it’s usually not that consensus has strengthened—it’s that leverage has temporarily propped up the price.

Low liquidity can create a good-looking rally, but it can’t easily support large amounts of positions exiting.

Remember: a rally on shrinking volume means there are temporarily fewer sellers—not that there are really more buyers willing to take over at higher prices.

Tell long-term holders’ cost line: the bottom of this cycle has not been reached yet!

The long-term holders’ cost line can be simply understood as the average cost of coins held for more than about 155 days.

In a bull market, BTC usually trades above the cost line. In the later stage of a bear market, once it breaks below, it means long-term holders also begin to incur overall unrealized losses.

Looking back at the first three cycle bottoms:

In 2015, long-term holders’ cost was about $305, BTC’s low was about $172, a discount of 44%.

In 2018, long-term holders’ cost was about $4,470, BTC’s low was about $3,217, a discount of 28%.

In 2022, long-term holders’ cost was about $20,700, BTC’s low was about $15,480, a discount of 25%.

As you can see, each cycle bottom still falls below the long-term holders’ cost line, but the discount has been gradually narrowing.

This doesn’t mean the bear market has become kinder. As long-term supply increases, the market may need more time to turn over, but it may not see the kind of 40%+ discount that occurred in the earlier cycles.

Right now, the long-term cost is about $50,100, and BTC is around $63,500—still about 26% above the cost line. So this level feels more like the mid-to-late stage of a bear market, before long-term holders fully capitulate.

Based on this, the forecast is:

Long-term cost may continue rising to between $53,000 and $56,000. BTC could form a cycle low between January and March 2027, with a price around $43,000 to $47,000—about 15% to 20% discounted versus the cost line.

If the discount continues to narrow, BTC may only chop and grind its way to a bottom around $50,000. And if a black swan event occurs, it could replicate the roughly 25% discount seen in 2022, with an extreme low around $40,000 to $42,000.

The hardest part of this cycle may not be a single massive crash, but rather the price tugging back and forth around the long-term cost line—slowly draining the market’s patience.

The conclusions above are a forecast derived from historical data. What do you think of this outcome? Can you accept it? The price range is similar, but the bottoming period is extended significantly!

The Nasdaq 100 has rebounded quickly from around 27,500. It has now moved back above the key pressure level of 30,000, and I’m getting cautious—I’m in no hurry to chase.

The reason is simple: around 30,100 it hits the falling trendline that has persisted for months. The previous few swing highs were all capped by this line. This time, whether it can break through will decide whether the move is a reversal or just another failed breakout.

What I’m even more worried about is a false breakout.
If the index repeatedly rallies between 30,100 and 30,500 but still can’t hold, it suggests the overhead trapped-supply is still there, and the current rise can only be considered a strong rebound.

The macro environment also isn’t loose enough to blindly go long. Even though the market is pricing in rate cuts, inflation still has some stickiness, and interest rates haven’t fully entered a broad downward cycle. The Nasdaq’s current overvaluation is mainly supported by the earnings of a handful of mega tech companies.

The AI story isn’t over—it’s just that the market is starting to ask: when will such high capital expenditures turn into profits?

Key levels:
30,200–30,500 is the resistance zone. Only a breakout with increased volume above 30,500–30,700, plus a pullback that doesn’t break, would count as a strengthening trend. The next target would be around 31,500.

If it still can’t get through 30,500, and then later breaks below 29,500, the correction may start again. On the downside, first watch 28,000; if that’s lost, then 26,300.

I won’t jump to a conclusion early just because the chart looks like a rounded top. Tops have to be confirmed by price.

So my plan is very straightforward:
Before the breakout, I won’t chase longs. Near the resistance areas, I can guard against a pullback. If it holds above 30,700, I’ll admit I was wrong, and then follow only after the pullback confirms.

If you chase now, you’re betting that it will break out. If you wait until it holds and then buy, you’re trading the breakout that has already happened.

Why do the sectors with the strongest consensus end up being the easiest to trap the most people?

EOS FIL PEPE BOME and many others—there are countless of them.

When I first entered the crypto圈, I always thought the stronger the consensus, the higher the certainty. Everyone was discussing public chains, AI, RWA, or some “cycle king.” Institutional research reports were all aligned in their bullish outlook, and KOLs’ target prices were higher than one another. I thought buying in was simply a matter of time before you made money.

Later, I realized that consensus itself isn’t wrong—the mistake is that the price has already priced in the future for years.

A story moves from being studied by a small group to becoming something the whole market knows. Early capital can already reap dozens of times the profit. But what later entrants call “certainty” is often precisely the liquidity the earlier holders need. The project may still be excellent, and its ecosystem may continue to grow. However, if the purchase price is too expensive, any slowdown in growth, increased unlocks, or a shift of funds elsewhere will trigger a valuation reversion.

In the previous cycle, I also chased what were called “core tracks.” The logic was never wrong—even through the bear market—but the coin price still fell 90%. Because the market never rewards just a good story; it also depends on the cost basis of the chips, circulating supply, and new buy pressure.

So now, when I encounter an asset that everyone unanimously believes in, I won’t first ask how great it is. I’ll ask instead: How many people still haven’t bought? Who will take the next baton?

Remember: the best narrative isn’t necessarily the best trade. When everyone believes, what’s truly scarce may no longer be consensus—but the next-buyer capital.

Will the bull come or not? If the bull doesn’t come, the bull that’s coming is going to die!

Right now, the biggest risk of the bull coming isn’t that there’s no hype. It’s that the market cap is already very high, and the market is pricing in in advance the expectation that it will “list on Binance Alpha” and “list on Binance futures.”

But since the bull’s name is the same as a movie, it’s not yet clear whether the project has obtained authorization.

Having the same name doesn’t automatically mean infringement. However, once it involves the movie’s name, characters, or promotional materials, the platform review may raise concerns about copyright, trademarks, or improper association.

Binance is usually quite cautious about this kind of dispute. As long as the risk can’t be ruled out, the listing expectations may fall through. Is that right, big brother and big sister?

Low-market-cap memes can be pumped just on hype, but high-market-cap ones must have new capital and fresh positives to keep the momentum. If the only reason everyone is buying is “waiting for Binance,” then if Alpha doesn’t get approved, what will the current valuation be supported by?

It might still rise, but chasing higher from this level is betting on an unconfirmed outcome. When hype is at its peak, be even more calm—don’t treat rumors as announcements, and don’t grab the last baton in the middle of FOMO.

By the way, there’s another rumor that the movie bull is going to be taken down. Is that true? It shouldn’t, right!

Can you believe that Niu’s movie box office has already surpassed 3 million, and the expected box office will reach 20 million…

What the f*ck, man
😂

If you calculate it like this, then it’s probably created the highest return rate in movie history
🤣
Costs are only tens of thousands, and the returns are already over a hundred times—if the 20 million box office prediction holds, the return rate can’t be less than a thousand times!

With a return rate like this, has any other movie done it? The profit amount also exceeds many garbage movies, right? People might be curious about a bad movie at most, but if it’s that bad, I guess a lot of people will definitely go try the saltiness…
😂😂😂

MVRV is approaching 1, and the true bottom of this cycle may not have appeared yet.

Looking back at the past three cycles:

📌 2015: After breaking below 1, it bottomed in 14 days
📌 2018: After breaking below 1, it bottomed in 31 days
📌 2022: After breaking below 1, it bottomed in 94 days

The MVRV at the cycle lows has, however, been rising with each round: 0.54 → 0.69 → 0.75—0.80

These data suggest a change: BTC’s extreme discount is weakening, but the process of finding a bottom is becoming increasingly drawn out.

In other words, the coming bear-market bottom may not be deeper, but it could be more grueling.

At the moment, MVRV is around 1.21, BTC is around $63,000, and the network’s realized cost is near $52,000—about 20% away from the market’s overall position moving into unrealized losses.

If this cycle continues to follow the pattern of “price drawdowns narrowing and time stretching,” then based on this projection:

1️⃣ October–December 2026: MVRV breaks below 1, and BTC enters the $52,000–$56,000 cost zone.

2️⃣ January–March 2027: MVRV dips to 0.82–0.90, while BTC searches for the cycle low around $44,000–$49,000.

Of course, this isn’t a precise prediction—it’s a benchmark path derived from the structure of prior cycles. When MVRV breaks below 1, that isn’t the bottom; it’s the market starting to price in the bottom.

What may be hardest to endure isn’t necessarily a single day’s crash, but repeated choppy trading below the cost line that gradually drains most people’s patience.

Oh man, the thought of it is so upsetting. With such a great U.S. stock market行情, my energy ended up getting wasted on that junk counterfeit market!

A few days ago I was tempted by those knockoffs, so I messed around with them. Turned out whatever I touched just kept losing—so I ended up easily losing another 2,000 bucks.

The money I needed to turn things around is gone again. With that cash, I might as well have just gone for SanDisk. Sometimes your energy really can’t be split. One minute you’re watching the knockoffs, the next you’re watching the U.S. stock market— and you might end up not doing well on either side. It’s another painfully bloody lesson…😂

So arrogant, so arrogant! This SanDisk SNDK—how come it's been rising just because they put out a good news? Once I missed the bottom sell and didn’t sell, I kept slapping myself for it. If it reaches a certain spot, I’m going to short it with a hand!

But for now, I really can’t rush. Follow the strategy I laid out this morning. We’re already getting close to the 1650–1700 range I mentioned earlier. If tonight at the market open it pumps up a bit more, there could be a chance to short it!

Bro @Wangduanniao, just hang in there a little longer. If you really can’t stand it and end up cutting loss, let me know—I’ll open a short too. If we make money, we’ll both be happy 😄

July’s CPI and PPI are both moderately warm, and US stocks keep strengthening. The S&P 500 hits a new high, with the Nasdaq up about 0.8%. AI hardware stocks like MU and SNDK are also rising.

$BTC is still stuck in the $62,000–$66,000 range, with trading volume and volatility continuing to decline.

This suggests the issue is no longer solely macro, but also within the crypto market itself.

ETF capital is indeed buying, but miners, corporate positions, and trapped holders are also selling. The result is that someone is absorbing the selling, yet the price still can’t be pushed higher.

Next, I’ll only watch a few key levels:

$63,000 is the box-range defense line. If it breaks, we need to prevent further downside.

Only if it reclaims and holds $64,500–$65,000 can the short-term trend be considered to have turned strong.

A breakout on increased volume above $66,000, along with the ETF resuming inflows, would be the only scenario worth discussing a trend reversal.

I’m not in a hurry to guess the bottom.

Back in 2018’s $6,000 and 2022’s $20,000, both ranges also went sideways for a long time. People mistakenly thought the risks had already passed. In the end, what often hurts the most isn’t the big drop—it’s the sense of safety created by prolonged sideways trading.

Why do I lose money as soon as I follow after seeing others make consecutive profits?

Over the years trading, I’ve found that the most dangerous moments aren’t just when I’m on a winning streak myself—it’s also when I see others winning consecutively.

In groups, people post screenshots of continuous gains—ten times, twenty times—where the win rate looks almost like picking up money. When you’re watching from the sidelines, you can still stay rational. But after a while, you start to question: if everyone else is raking in profits, what am I waiting for?

So I tested it with a small position the first time and made some money. The second time, I increased my position. The third time, I went straight to leverage. And the funny thing is—right from the moment I started copy-trading with my heavier position, it began to retrace.

This isn’t necessarily because others are deliberately trying to trap you.
What you see is only his profit result—you don’t see his costs, his position size, or his stop-loss. He may already have a profit cushion at the low point, so even a 10% drawdown still leaves him in the green; but when you chase in at the hottest moment emotionally, if the market drops the same 10%, you might already be wiped out.

More importantly, consecutive wins can tempt the person leading the trades into treating market tailwinds as if they were personal skill. And for the copy-trader, survivor bias can feel like a consistent win rate. When things are going smoothly, even the wrong approach can make money. But when the environment changes, the last people to enter usually pay the highest cost.

The most ironic part of trading is this: other people making money makes you feel excited. The more they post, the worse your entry point tends to be.

Remember: you can参考 other people’s logic, but don’t copy their positions. You see their profits, but you’re the one bearing your own risk.

Damn, Micron MU and SanDisk SNDK are really my pain points. Look at my trade record—there I was, with a chance to take the big bite, and yet I always ended up skimming off a little oil and running away!

I got the direction right, and I timed the swings—yet in the end I still sold too early.

A week ago, after the MU and SNDK earnings reports, both dropped hard. Everyone was shouting, “AI storage is over.”

My take at the time was: the decline isn’t because demand disappeared—it’s because the valuations have to digest after expectations were overly priced in. What really mattered was whether, once the price fell, there would be fresh capital stepping in.

Looking back now, that assessment is basically confirmed.

MU stabilized above the $800–$820 support zone, then regained momentum and broke back through $900. It’s now at $956, right inside the $950–$1,000 target zone I had earlier laid out.

SNDK’s move is even more typical. After the earnings report, I shorted around $1,420 and took profit near $1,270—capturing the selloff that matched the expected outcome. But later, I entered the rebound swing too early. Then it promptly looked like it was back above $1,500, which definitely has that “sold too early” flavor.

That’s the most real part of trading: getting the direction right doesn’t necessarily mean you can capture the entire move; selling too early doesn’t automatically mean you did something wrong—it just means the market is stronger than you expected.

This rebound in SNDK isn’t just a pure sentiment recovery. In an investor day, the company laid out growth targets for fiscal years 2028–2030 in the high double-digits. Adjusted gross margin is expected to hold around 80%, and they increased revenue certainty through long-term customer agreements. The stock jumped 13.7% in a single day, while MU also rose 4.2%.

Going forward, I think:
MU first to watch is $950–$1,000.
If it puts volume behind and holds above $1,000, the trend can continue. But if it falls back below $900 again, that suggests the selling pressure above hasn’t fully been digested.

For SNDK, I’d look first at $1,580.
After a breakout, you could target $1,650–$1,700. But if it spikes up and then falls back under $1,500, watch for a pullback to $1,350–$1,400.

My view hasn’t changed:
The AI storage cycle isn’t over yet, but the market has shifted from “it goes up even if you buy with your eyes closed” to a phase where “orders, profit margins, and long-term guidance must keep getting delivered.”

As for selling too early—sure, it’s definitely a little painful. But trading isn’t a contest to see who sells at the very highest point. The money you should earn, you earned. The rest isn’t mine—and there’s no need to chase back in just because of unwillingness. Stay rational, and absolutely don’t let emotions take over!

SPCX rises from 105 to 146: a reversal, or valuation repair after a release?

First, here’s my take:
It’s likely that a phase bottom has already formed around 105, but the 146–160 zone is not a comfortable追涨 (chasing) area. What you buy here isn’t cheapness—it’s the breakout.

In the previous round, SPCX fell from above 200 to around 105 mainly because valuation was too high, earnings expectations were already priced in, and the pressure from the lock-up release was released all at once.

Simply put, this is a valuation kill and a positioning/lot-kill, not an earnings kill.

After the downtrend bottomed near 105, the stock price repeatedly reclaimed 120, 130, and 140, and the lows also started to rise. That suggests the most pessimistic phase is over, and the market’s pricing for it is beginning to re-include expectations for Starlink, AI, and high-growth platforms.

However, rising from 105 to 146 only confirms that the repair is strong—it doesn’t yet confirm that the downtrend has ended. The 150–160 range is the previous trapped-share crowd and a dense trading zone, and it’s also the toughest hurdle for this rebound.

Right now, I’m watching four levels:
130 USD — the life line of the rebound structure
140 USD — the line dividing short-term strength/weakness
160 USD — the trend confirmation level
180 USD — the mid-term reversal confirmation level

If SPCX can consolidate with decreasing volume between 140 and 150, then break out above 160 on increased volume, the next target could be 175–180.

If, instead, it rises on increased volume from 150 to 160 but can’t move higher, and then falls back below 135–140, this rally looks more like a valuation repair rather than a new primary upswing.

So my logic is very clear:
Below 160 USD, I play it as a repair. Only after it holds above 160 USD do I start discussing a reversal. Only if it breaks above and holds 180 USD does it earn the right to be reconsidered for a move back above 200.

The 105 USD buy is about the odds (risk-reward). The 148 USD buy is about the trend. Those two trades are completely different.

Just for personal trade review; not investment advice.

Tonight’s CPI: what you really need to watch isn’t 3.4%, but core 0.2%

At 20:30 tonight, the U.S. CPI will be released. The market expects year-on-year 3.4% and a month-on-month core rate of 0.2%. Since the odds of a rate hike in September are still roughly 50/50, a deviation of 0.1 percentage point in the core data could trigger a fresh repricing of U.S. Treasuries, U.S. stocks, and BTC.

My view is that overall inflation will keep cooling, but the core number won’t be particularly impressive.

If core comes in below 0.2%, it would be supportive for risk assets. BTC may have a chance to break through $64,500 to $65,000, and then look toward $66,000. If core reaches 0.3% or higher, U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar could strengthen, and BTC would need to watch closely that it doesn’t lose the $63,000 level, with downside toward $62,500.

If the data matches expectations, I’m more inclined to think BTC will first spike higher, then trade in a range.

Don’t rush to chase the first candlestick tonight. What truly determines the direction is whether, 30 to 60 minutes after the release, U.S. Treasury yields pull back—and whether BTC can hold the breakout level.

Many people say that 60,000 is the bottom, but I still have to wait a bit longer—even if I miss the move!

The longer I stay in the crypto market, the more I realize that the people who can truly survive several rounds of bull and bear cycles all have a little bit of “cowardice” in them.

In the first two trading cycles, I always felt that every cent in the market should be mine.

When BTC started moving, I was afraid of missing out;
When ETH surged, I hurried to catch up;
When SOL rose, I went searching for which other chain hadn’t moved yet.

When I saw Meme coins suddenly double, even though I didn’t even know what the project was doing, I still couldn’t help jumping in.

Back then, what I feared wasn’t losing money—it was other people making money while I didn’t.

BTC has been trading sideways around 60,000 for two months. Many people have already started calling it the bottom. The ETFs are absorbing supply, and the price has fallen quite a bit, so it really does seem cheap.

If it were back then, I probably would’ve already entered.

Because I’d think: What if 600,000 is really the bottom? What if it rebounds straight away tomorrow? What if everyone else already profited, and I’m the only one still waiting?

But after going through several bull-and-bear cycles, I’ve become more and more afraid of that kind of “what if.”

In trading, the real cost people pay is often not missing out, but unwillingness to accept it.

Unwilling to miss out, so you chase before the trend is confirmed;
Unwilling to admit you’re wrong on a loss, so you keep holding even after it breaks your plan;
Unwilling to take profits, so you watch your gains ride around on a roller coaster;
Unwilling to admit you were wrong, so you turn short-term positions into medium-term, then medium-term into value investing—until, somehow, you end up becoming a shareholder.

60,000 is the same now.

It could be the bottom, but it could also just be a sideways pause within a downtrend.

There’s ETF buying support below, but the selling pressure above hasn’t disappeared. The price still hasn’t truly escaped the downtrend structure.

So I’m still waiting.

Not because I can predict an even lower entry, and not because I have to buy at the absolute bottom. It’s just that the current structure hasn’t yet made me willing to pay the cost of making a heavy-position mistake.

If BTC regains and holds the key resistance level and the trend is confirmed, then I can buy at a higher price—I’ll make less on the very first leg, but I can accept it if the entry reason is clearer.

And if 60,000 is ultimately proven to be the bottom, then I’ll accept that too.

I used to think missing out was a kind of loss. Now I understand: missing out mainly makes you earn less, while getting heavily wrong can take you off the trading table.

The longer you do it, the more you slowly become “cowardly.”

Why do positions you’re least willing to cut losses from often end up losing more in the end?

When I first entered the market, I always thought selling meant admitting defeat.
A 10% drop made me wait for a rebound; a 30% drop made me start researching fundamentals; a 50% drop made me tell myself, “Just hold long term.”

Only later did I realize that a lot of so-called “beliefs” are simply unwillingness to admit that my judgment was wrong.

Human nature treats the purchase price as an anchor: anything above your cost is “gains,” anything below it is “undervaluation.” But the market doesn’t know where you bought, and it certainly won’t pull prices back just because you’re eager to get back to break-even.

The deepest pit I fell into wasn’t misjudging one project—it was trying to prove I wasn’t wrong. I kept averaging down, my position kept growing heavier, my options kept shrinking. And when a real opportunity finally appeared, all my capital was trapped in that story of “wait a bit more and it will come back.”

Cutting losses doesn’t mean you sell everything the moment it drops.
Before buying, write down the logic clearly: why you’re buying, and what conditions indicate your judgment has become invalid. Price fluctuations can be tolerated; when the logic breaks, you should leave.

The most expensive cost in trading is never a single small loss. It’s tying up time, capital, and emotions—maintaining over the long term a decision that has already become wrong.

Remember: admitting you made a mistake costs you one chunk of money; refusing to admit it may mean missing an entire cycle.

What you see in the information feed determines what you end up coming into contact with every day, and over the long term it can also affect your way of thinking. So I’d rather watch less of the commotion and keep my attention for research, action, and consistent output.

I don’t really like gossip.

Who’s arguing with whom, which project has started going at each other again—glancing at it occasionally is fine, but chasing it long-term only drains your emotions. Once the excitement is over, your position won’t improve because of it, and your cognition won’t automatically get better.

I’d rather focus on people who bring new information, or friends who genuinely interact. This isn’t because I think I’m more insightful than anyone else—it’s simply that my attention is limited.

Add one more piece of noise to the timeline, and truly important information might end up being missed.

I’m also increasingly aligned with a creator’s mindset: instead of spending time evaluating others, it’s better to keep building your own content and capabilities.

When the market is good, everyone can talk about opportunities. When things cool down, only those who still study, review, and认真（seriously） produce meaningful output are truly worth following long-term.

I don’t want to gain a sense of presence by consuming gossip, and I don’t want to maintain relationships through mutual follows. I’ll focus on my own work. Keep producing valuable content, and over time, your content will naturally help filter out people who are on the same path.

Why do many people get the direction right, yet still lose money?

After trading for a long time, I realized that getting the direction right is just the cheapest skill. What truly determines your profit or loss is what position size you use, how much volatility you can withstand, and whether you’re willing to admit and act when you’re wrong.

I’ve had this experience too. I judged that BTC would rise in the medium term, so I kept increasing my position size—until I even opened leverage.

In the end, the direction was indeed correct, but it dropped 10% before the rise. I couldn’t hold through the stop-out and left the trade; then, when the price resumed, I still wasn’t willing to miss out, so I chased higher again. Finally, I ended up with, “My view was correct, but my account lost money.”

The market won’t accommodate your entry timing just because you called the bigger trend correctly. Especially in the crypto market, the main players love to first clear out those who have oversized positions and lack patience, before the move in the correct direction begins.

There’s another even more common one: when you make money with a small position, you’re eager to lock in profits; but when you lose money with a large position, you keep adding to your position. The money you make when you’re right is just pocket change—but one mistake can wipe out all the profits from the previous few months.

Later, I finally understood: trading isn’t a game of guessing whether prices will go up or down—it’s a matter of managing odds. Being wrong about direction isn’t the scary part. The scary part is when one wrong move can get you out of the game. Even if you’re right, it doesn’t guarantee you’ll profit; if your position size gets out of control, being correct can still turn into a disaster.

Remember: the market doesn’t reward the person who is right the most times. It rewards the person who loses the least when wrong, and can still stay in the game when right.