Digital currency investment should boldly break through traditional thinking and tolerate "heresy" projects

Yesterday I shared with you that in digital currency investment, I think the most important elements to consider are decentralization and freedom.

When a project has the above-mentioned elements, the next element to be considered will test everyone's humanity, because this element challenges our own inherent way of thinking, and we have to compete with ourselves, which is more difficult than any other difficulty.

When we invest in a project, the usual logic is to see if it has value. We evaluate whether a project is valuable by seeing whether the project has a usage scenario or whether its usage scenario can generate enough value.

If a project has no usage scenarios at all, we usually think it is a pyramid scheme; if a project has very limited usage scenarios, we usually think it has limited value.

The most direct basis and inspiration for us to judge usage scenarios almost all come from our daily life experience and understanding of traditional investment markets.

The blockchain ecology is special because it is a brand new ecology, and the logic and scenarios in this ecology are very far from our daily life in many aspects, and even have a strong contrast with our experience and intuition.

When the vast majority of people saw Bitcoin for the first time in their early years, they almost thought it was a pyramid scheme; among these people, the few who crossed the cognitive barrier and were lucky enough to invest in Bitcoin, when they saw Ethereum for the first time, most of them However, they think that Ethereum is of little value; this once again crosses the cognitive barrier, and the few who have invested in Ethereum almost think that it is purely a bubble when they first see the liquidity mining of DeFi.

Let's see, even players who have a higher level of cognition than ordinary people and entered this ecology early will unconsciously be influenced and restricted by traditional inherent thinking when encountering new things, not to mention their cognition is far inferior to their outsiders .

On the one hand, this characteristic of the blockchain ecology is a great challenge to all investors who are looking for treasure in this field. On the other hand, this characteristic also shows that this ecology contains countless explosive opportunities. As long as the cognitive iteration is fast , one step ahead can seize the star projects with great potential when the prices of these projects are extremely low.

To be able to accept this challenge and seize the opportunity, we need to boldly break through our traditional thinking and tolerate "heresy" projects.

Let me give three examples to talk about my own cognitive process: AMPL, NSURE and COVER.

When I first saw the AMPL project, what impressed me the most was that the project's treatment of "currency" completely surpassed the conventional approach.

In our daily cognition, when inflation occurs, the amount of currency held by each of us remains unchanged, but the price of goods increases, which leads to a decline in the purchasing power of the currency we hold, and the things we can buy less. On the contrary, when deflation occurs, the amount of money we hold remains the same, but the price of goods becomes lower, and we can buy more things.

This is the inherent cognition of currency formed by human society for thousands of years.

But AMPL is different. What it hopes to achieve is that when the currency is inflated or contracted, the amount of money we hold changes. This kind of experience is impossible to happen in daily life, but due to the wonderfulness of blockchain technology, in This field actually happened.

Regarding this project, if we purely follow our intuition, many people will think that it is unreliable and impossible to succeed, because there has never been such a case in the 5,000-year history of human society, but I think this project is worth letting it go. Whether it will succeed in the end, I don't know yet, but what I know is that once it succeeds, it will be a pioneering work, another major initiative after Bitcoin. So I invested in this project without too many worries.

In yesterday's article, I wrote that when I saw NXM for the first time, I had a very bad impression of this project, so I didn't want to invest in it at all, but I was very optimistic about the field of insurance, so I continued to look for funds in this field. new project.

The first project that caught my eye was NSURE. What I like most about this project is that it clearly points out in the white paper that NXM's KYC system is not in line with the spirit of the blockchain, so NSURE should take the popular route. In addition, it The operation team of the company is all professionals in traditional insurance, and the mechanism of project design is relatively reasonable and logical.

Based on my understanding when I saw this project, I thought that the operation idea of ​​insurance in the blockchain should probably be the same as the traditional one, so the NSURE project was very appealing to me, so I boldly voted for it.

Then I saw COVER. My first impression of this project is, how can insurance play like this? Set the risk and non-risk of a project as a token. If you are willing to take risks, buy one of them, and if you are not willing to buy the other? If so, what is the difference between insurance and gambling?

If such insurance is to be successful, the project parties must boldly join in and cooperate with the issuance of insurance tokens for their respective projects. Is this possible? Why should other projects cooperate with you?

But from another point of view, I think the idea of ​​this project is so bold, so daring to subvert the tradition, will there be any hope of success in this model? So I boldly voted for this project.

As a result, shortly after COVER went live, the famous Pickle hack happened. As soon as the incident happened, COVER paid for it. I saw that this was a miracle, and the project was very likely to become famous in the industry because of this battle, so I increased the position of this project token.

Sure enough, more and more projects took the initiative to find COVER to cooperate with it, and its currency price also rose from more than 300 US dollars at the beginning of its launch to 1300 US dollars.

Whether the three projects I personally experienced above will be successful or just a flash in the pan will take time to test, and in my opinion this is not so important, what is more important is that we dare to challenge the shackles of inherent thinking and be tolerant "Heretical" project. As long as we dare to think in this way, even if many of the projects we invest in eventually return to zero, we will definitely be able to catch some varieties with great potential and reap rich returns.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone: when I invest in these projects, I am fully prepared to return to zero, and I am willing to bear 100% of all risks brought about by the project. If investors are not mentally prepared, they should take a safe investment route and focus on Bitcoin and Ethereum.

In addition, my investment in these projects does not mean that readers will also buy these coins when they read this article, because the price I bought is very different from the price you see. I have repeatedly said before that no matter how good a project is, it is not worth investing in if the price is too high.

Therefore, I disclose my investment experience only as a reference object for everyone, and it is by no means a simple imitation object for everyone.