An entrepreneur's most "dry content density" content output often appears in the few years when he has just gained some fame but has not yet become a "big shot".

For example, Justin Sun's "The Revolutionary Road to Financial Freedom"—his judgments and arguments from nine years ago—have been discussed and revisited time and again, with many of his conclusions and trends partially borne out in reality. More importantly, the methodology and decision-making framework behind it remain valuable references.

One of the most memorable and widely discussed topics is Justin Sun's "Three No's": no house, no car, and no marriage before age 30. Is this a permanent rejection of these three things, or are there other considerations? Recent rumors and public opinion surrounding Justin Sun: Why did he break up with his ex-girlfriend? Why only buy a garage for his father, who wanted a luxury car? Why does this billionaire seem both generous and stingy? These audio course materials from nine years ago offer answers and explanations.

To facilitate reading, BlockBeats has made minimal polishing and structural rearrangement to the audio of Justin Sun's 2016 public course, trying to retain the original sense of language, and following the logic of "from the simple to the complex", re-arranged and polished the content of why Justin Sun chose "not to buy a house, not to buy a car, and not to get married" for everyone to review.

Q: Why are most young people hardworking but not rich? What are they missing?

Justin Sun: A company's strategy is important, and so is its people. I'm very opposed to this. Many young people don't think about anything, don't implement any strategy, and just rush into marriage, treating marriage, having children, buying a house, parents, and wives as strategies. They never consider their own lives or themselves as strategies.

The core reason why most people work hard but don't get rich is that they lack strategy. Many people think strategy is a big word, like Jack Ma, so why should I? Actually, it's quite the opposite. People without money should prioritize strategy; it's the single most important factor in determining success. I believe the first step is to not think about everything in advance, but to roll up your sleeves and get started. First, think clearly about the purpose of your life. Why do you do these things? What are the benefits? Does this align with your original aspirations? Who are you? Where did you come from and where are you going? Think clearly about these fundamental questions. If you don't have these clear answers, you'll definitely never lead a successful life, which will naturally lead to the problem of working hard but not getting rich. This is a common saying in the startup world: using tactical diligence to mask strategic laziness. This means you may feel busy every day, but in reality, you're not accomplishing anything.

The vast majority of people in China seem to be programmed to follow a three-step process: buying a car, buying a house, and getting married, right after graduating from university. They're like the dummies in The Matrix, with a controller plugged into their heads. They possess no independent personality or free will, because it's all programmed. Most people don't reflect on why they should get married? Why buy a car? Why buy a house? They just blindly follow the program, like a program, and it just happens. I find this terrifying.

Next, we will take a deeper look at Justin Sun’s thoughts nine years ago from the three dimensions of not buying a house, not getting married, and family relationships.

Why not buy a house?

Question: House prices have risen so much recently, should I buy a house?

Justin Sun: I think this question really depends on each person. First of all, I'm not bearish on housing prices in first-tier cities. However, the housing bubble in China's second- and third-tier cities is indeed serious. I think the bubble is very obvious in areas outside of Beijing, including Shenzhen. I believe Shenzhen's future development depends on further improvement of the city itself. Even so, the growth in Beijing and Shanghai is limited. First of all, you said that prices have increased more than tenfold in the past ten years. Can they increase tenfold again in the next ten years? This is absolutely impossible. In fact, if it were to increase at this rate, housing prices would be higher than on Mars, which is impossible.

Let's talk about affordability. For the vast majority of those born in the 1990s and 1995s, buying a house is essentially an "opportunity you can't afford." There are countless investment opportunities in the world you can't afford. For example, there's an insurance company in Portugal that's going to be privatized. I could invest money and make money, but the minimum investment is 500 million yuan. Would you participate? You can't, right? Similarly, the starting price for a property in Beijing or Shanghai is 5 million yuan. For most people born in the 1990s, 5 million yuan and 500 million yuan are the same—you can't afford either. So this isn't your opportunity. There's no need to worry about whether you can afford it, because it's not even within your reach. Even with your current cash flow as collateral, banks may not be willing to lend to you.

Unless we're talking about three generations paying for a house, with grandparents, grandparents, and both sets of parents all involved. But then you'll realize a problem. Yes, it's very likely that you've seized this investment opportunity, but there's no such thing as a free lunch. When all the elders participate, your "small limited company" with your partner suddenly has 12 shareholders, each with veto power—because they invested in the company. So if you then complain about buying this house, saying, "What do my parents do every day? What do my grandparents do?" Is there anything to complain about? It's perfectly natural. They participated in the formation of your company, so how could they not share in dividends and participate in decision-making?

What is more realistic is that most young people actually lack the most basic investment knowledge and understanding of the investment threshold, so they will definitely buy the most expensive house and get trapped at the price most likely to be expensive. Buying a house itself is a very complicated matter. I think it will take 10 classes to explain buying a house clearly. It is very complicated and you can't just buy it if you want to.

So for the vast majority of young people, buying a house is prematurely entering a dangerous territory where they lack the financial resources, investment skills, and discernment. They will ultimately pay a heavy price for this decision. It truly is a heavy price. Many people don't even buy houses for investment; the vast majority buy them to get married. This can make their marriages even more doomed, as they'll find themselves unable to divorce, even if they can't live together. This house binds them so tightly. It ties two people, two families—both sets of parents, four elderly parents, and you two—almost 14 people, all tied to the same asset. I believe the complexity of this relationship is comparable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Back to the issue of price increases, even during the most recent period of rapid growth, the average transaction price in Beijing has only increased by 10% to 15% month-over-month, for example, from 45,000 to 55,000 yuan. While this may sound like an increase, from an investment perspective, there are many opportunities for young people to invest in sectors with returns exceeding 20%. Take the mobile internet sector, for example, which I'm familiar with. Well-known companies like Weibo and Momo have seen their stock double in a single year, with some seeing even more dramatic increases. In comparison, housing may be an option for those unfamiliar with the internet, but for most ordinary people, it's a harsh and unnecessary choice.

Now, let's talk cars. Now that you're rich, you want to buy a luxury car for fun? Of course you can. Even when I was a broke student, I dreamed of driving a Lamborghini. But you might also be curious: I made over 10 million yuan by the end of 2013, and now my net worth is over 100 million yuan, so why haven't I bought a car yet? The real reason is simple: I don't have time. I've been so busy since starting my own business that I struggled with learning to drive. I only got my license last year, and I was so novice that I couldn't even reverse the car alone.

I also think another factor is the unprecedented boom in the sharing economy, with apps like Didi and Yidao, and even in the US, Uber. For daily commuting in big cities, not having a car doesn't affect it at all. Driving in smaller cities, to Hoh Xil, or taking Highway 1? I don't have the time or the resources. In Beijing, Didi and Uber are already a great commuting experience, so I've never bought a car.

And the experience is truly better: I don't have to stop, and I can make calls, work, or write on the way. Everyone knows Beijing traffic; getting from Zhongguancun to Guomao often takes an hour or two. If I drive, all that time is spent behind the wheel; with a taxi, I can turn that time into productive use. So far, I haven't seen the need to buy a car. Of course, if someone gave me one for free, I'd still take it.

Question: But as businessmen, we still need a decent car to show off. What should we do?

Justin Sun: Is it necessary to have a fancy car to maintain your presence in business? I don't think so. Real partners are savvy and won't pay for your "face-saving" projects. As long as your products, services, and personal expertise have already established trust, there's no need to rely on a car to enhance your reputation. This is also the reason why I didn't buy a car in the early years.

Of course, Beijing still has the lottery issue—even if you want to buy a license plate, you might not be able to. If you really want to buy one, renting a license plate isn't difficult, but considering all the above analysis, I still think it's pointless. Let me give you another example: During the peak of my Yidao car usage, I topped up 80,000 yuan and received a bonus of 100,000 yuan, which meant I had 180,000 yuan in taxi credit, plus two TVs and a bunch of coupons. I used this account for almost 18 months, and it basically covered all my car needs. My average monthly bill was 3,000 to 4,000 yuan, and after discounts, it was just over 2,000 yuan, enough for business trips and chartered cars for the day—it really didn't cost much.

Buying and maintaining a car yourself is a terrible idea. First, from an investment perspective, it's practically a disaster. Even for someone like me who runs a business, buying a car can still be deducted from VAT, theoretically making it cheaper than everyone else. But even so, I'm reluctant to buy one. A car is a fixed asset, subject to depreciation. It'll be gone in a few years, not appreciate in value. I've always preferred "asset-light" ventures like the internet.

What's even more frustrating is that buying a car is like having a child—you have to take care of it every day. It can't wash itself, refuel itself, find its own parking space, or get its annual inspection done. And if it breaks, it needs repairs. You also have to "buy a suite" for it—a parking space, and usually pay for it outright. Entrepreneurs around me generally report two major challenges: one is childcare and the constant chores of medical appointments that slow things down; the other is the constant car-related hurdles: getting it repaired today, charging it tomorrow. A friend of ours, a post-90s entrepreneur, bought a Tesla, but on the way to charging it, it ran out of battery, forcing him to call roadside assistance. There are so many other issues, I won't go into detail. So, how can we get around without a car? The sharing economy has basically solved that problem perfectly. At least for "using a car," there are mature alternatives in China.

From the perspective of the sharing economy, it offers a perfect alternative to fixed asset investment. Cars and real estate have already spawned giants like Didi and Airbnb; housekeeping services include 58 Daojia and Ayibang; second-hand goods include Zhuanzhuan and Xianyu; and knowledge services include Zhihu Live. The sharing economy has lowered the barrier to entry for all "luxury goods" that once required significant investment.

So from my perspective, it’s hard to justify buying a car.

Question: If I must buy a house in Beijing, which areas in Beijing are worth investing in? Do you have any suggestions?

Justin Sun: I believe I have some say on this issue. The general strategy is simple: choose a "low-price area" in Beijing. In my opinion, the area that's still considered a low-price area in Beijing is primarily Tiantongyuan. If you search on platforms like Lianjia, you'll still find properties in Tiantongyuan priced just over 20,000 yuan. Given Beijing's average transaction price of over 50,000 yuan, this price point is truly rare and offers decent value.

One follower said they found prices in Tiantongyuan exceeding 40,000 yuan. That's because you're mostly looking for smaller units with lower price tags and higher liquidity, or units with better locations and older buildings. Larger units in Tiantongyuan, such as those over 200 square meters, often have lower unit prices. And while you'll need to be selective—not every unit is cheap, the chances of finding a bargain in Tiantongyuan are definitely higher than in other areas. As for the question of "Is it my fault if I bought and lost money?" Investments are always volatile. I've already identified the relatively cheapest areas in Beijing. The rest depends on your own selection and execution.

The core of any investment lies in price. It's not surprising that the underlying asset is valuable; the key lies in the price at which you purchase it. Many people attach too many unsuitable attributes to real estate purchases—such as prestige, marriage, and competition—which cloud their judgment and ultimately ruin a potentially successful investment.

The same approach can be applied to other cities: first identify undervalued areas during sector rotation and focus on "low-cost" areas. My own research: in Shanghai, look for Cannes; in Beijing, Tiantongyuan; and nationally, Chongqing offers excellent value for money. I'm from Huizhou, and before Shenzhen's housing prices took off, the area near Shenzhen was a good place to absorb the market. Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Huizhou can also look for undervalued areas within their respective sectors.

Remember, real estate is different from stocks. While the price per share of a company remains the same at any given time, real estate prices are highly differentiated. Prices vary significantly depending on the district, street frontage, floor orientation, age, whether the property is new or pre-owned, unit size, price range, school district, and even whether the landlord is in a hurry to sell. Add to this your financing requirements—down payment ratio, loan interest rate, loan term, and whether you can get a discount—and the final "true cost" is a comprehensive assessment.

Therefore, buying a house is essentially a complex "comprehensive battle." It's not something that can be determined simply by asking, "What's the average price in Beijing or Shanghai?" Take Tiantongyuan, for example. The average initial launch price was 3,000 to 4,000 yuan, a level from over a decade ago; even last year, some people were buying special-condition houses for 13,000 yuan. If you can still close a deal for just over 20,000 yuan now, that's a three- or four-fold increase over the past decade or so; while some areas in Beijing have seen a tenfold increase over the same period. Where does the disparity come from? It's the neighborhood, apartment type, timing, and price you purchased. Choosing the right one and holding on to it firmly is the essence of buying a house.

Q: Why do you advocate “no buying a house, no car, no getting married before the age of 30”?

Justin Sun: I believe that within ten years at most—by 2027—the independent lifestyle of "no house, no car, no marriage before age 30" will become mainstream among young Chinese. Today, people still ask, "Can you survive before age 30 without buying a house, no car, and no marriage?" Ten years from now, someone might ask, "How dare you buy a house, a car, and get married before age 30?"

To prevent our generation from being stereotyped before the age of 30, I want to conduct a public "controlled experiment." Using ourselves as a sample, I'd like to prove to our peers across China that it's possible to live well, or even better, without getting married, buying a car, a house, or having children before the age of 30. It's like a large-scale double-blind trial in biomedicine—we all have similar backgrounds, you follow your path, I follow mine, and ten years from now, we'll see who has fared better.

Of course, in today's China, choosing not to buy a car, a house, get married, or have children before turning 30 is certainly a significant pressure. I've personally experienced this: a key reason for breaking up with my last girlfriend was my inability to get married before 30. Some people might say, "What's the point of dating without getting married? Are you being a jerk?" If someone thinks that way, I can only express my regret. I know that making "not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married" a life goal before turning 30 isn't easy—it truly isn't. But I also believe that if we use the golden decade of our 20s to 30s to improve our personal abilities, especially our core competencies in the internet age, we won't regret it when we look back ten years from now.

Why not get married?

Q: Why haven’t you gotten married yet? You are already 27 years old.

Justin Sun: Indeed, I think as a man I feel less pressure. But it seems that in China, if you're 26 and still unmarried, you'll definitely be asked this question by everyone. Some of my exes broke up with me because they didn't see the possibility of marrying me within the next three years. Most women don't even wait three years; they'll break up if there's no response after six months.

I deeply admire the social environment in Europe and the United States, where everyone's life goal isn't marriage, but personal and career advancement. In this kind of society, no one has to explain their choices to society. It's a strange society: those who marry don't have to explain their motives, but those who stay single do. It's truly baffling. So I hope this situation in China will change in the next 10 to 20 years.

Returning to marriage itself, I personally believe that the essence of marriage is, of course, to build a family. Essentially, it's about choosing your family partners. This approach to partner selection is far more fraught than choosing a partner in a company. Because a company can choose a partner, for example, if you disagree or fall out, you can still exit. However, there's no exit mechanism for family partners. The day you exit means the company's demise, the family's dissolution, and all assets must be immediately liquidated, divided equally between the two partners.

You can see a few issues here. First, it's a complete 'big pot' arrangement. Second, the exit mechanism is a catastrophic one, right? So, in this situation, I think choosing a partner requires extreme caution. I even think two people should spend at least two years living closely together before getting married. One year is the minimum. Only then can you understand if this person is compatible with you and whether you can maintain consistency when major life challenges arise.

So I personally feel that when it comes to marriage, first of all, I don’t take marriage as my goal, and I think if I, Justin Sun, never get married in this life, it is not a big sin, or it is not a thing that is left unfinished. But I also hope that I can find the other half that I really like and be with her, but I will be very cautious about this matter.

Q: Why do the post-90s generation not need marriage? Why was our society not opposed to marriage in the past?

Justin Sun: First of all, it's important to understand that not everyone is cut out for marriage, nor does everyone need to get married. Marriage is essentially a "family partnership" project, and just like starting a business, not everyone is suitable. Whether or not to find this partner is up to you, and it's fine if you don't—that's the first point.

Secondly, marriage means giving up both parties' freedoms and forming a partnership. Therefore, it's normal for two people to clash over independent development and have their independence compromised. One of the costs of marriage is sacrificing some independence. Can you accept this? If not, divorce is likely, and the costs of divorce are high. In other words, giving up freedom to form a partnership isn't for everyone, nor is it appropriate at any stage of life.

Third, marriage, as a family unit, often amplifies social risks. While it's supposed to be a mutually supportive relationship, in reality, the risk is often transmitted in a way that "if one person gets into trouble, the whole family picks up the slack": if one person gambles, the whole family covers; if one person is in debt, the whole family is held responsible; if one person becomes seriously ill, the whole family bears the brunt of the burden. Risks that could normally be faced independently are magnified by the financial and emotional ties of the family, weakening the unit's resilience and easily cascading down the family, hindering everyone's development.

Fourth, based on current practical experience, marriage can lead to a decline in overall quality of life, which is understandable. There are only 24 hours in a day, and devoting a significant amount of time to the duties of a "partner" naturally prevents you from dedicating the same time to personal exploration. Many interests and pursuits require negotiation between two people, inevitably diluting one's personal rhythm. In the past, being single wasn't comfortable enough, with high costs and tedious tasks. Now, technology and services are making single life increasingly accessible, offering more options and greater efficiency. Once married, this free time is ceded.

Fifth, the "exit mechanism" for marriage is imperfect, and divorce often carries enormous financial and emotional costs. It's not a simple "delete WeChat and it's over" breakup; it involves real estate, the division of shared assets, and even child custody and visitation arrangements. The complexity and cost are often far greater than if we hadn't married. This is a real risk we must weigh when considering marriage.

Sixth, and what I believe is most crucial in the Chinese context, once you enter marriage, it's highly likely that parents, extended family, and even the entire acquaintance community will intervene forcefully. This is especially true when your wedding is tied to the "traditional checklist" of buying a house, car, betrothal gifts, and gifts, and requires your parents' savings or the approval of elders. It's easy to be drawn into the values and behavioral logic of the previous generation, becoming a "vassal" of the entire situation, allowing your parents' worldview to dictate your life choices.

In the internet age, marriage is no longer the ultimate purpose of human existence. For the vast majority of people, at least in traditional and industrial societies, marriage was once considered life's most important mission. But in the internet age, this trend is clearly changing. While many may find it difficult to adapt, I believe they will gradually learn: the ultimate purpose of life is only one: yourself. Not a house, not a car, not marriage, not parents, but yourself.

Back in feudal and industrial societies, marriage and family, as the basic unit of society, indeed undertook many functions and divisions of labor. First, forming a family significantly reduced the cost of living: cooking together, renting or living together, and even bringing parents in to care for each other could all spread out costs and time. In the past, without a division of labor within the family, one person had to work during the day, cook, wash dishes, and manage household chores at night—a task difficult to balance. Second, the family unit fostered a division of labor and cooperation—the familiar maxim of "men work outside, women work inside; men farm, women weave." In ancient times, women often could not support themselves, and mothers and children relied on men's income. Men therefore shouldered the responsibility of supporting women and raising children. Third, the family fulfilled social responsibilities: caring for the elderly and raising children, primarily within the family. Fourth, from a family perspective, blood ties and lineages were the earliest forms of interpersonal organization. The continuation of the family line was considered the core of the family and power, with primogeniture being a prime example. Fifth, marriage and family have long been the most stable and accepted means of human reproduction.

But in the internet age, these functions are gradually diminishing. Let's first consider the cost of living: the cost of living alone has plummeted, as the crude division of labor within the family has been replaced by a refined division of labor driven by socialization and the internet. Take cooking, for example. My mother has always said, "Either learn to cook or find a wife who can cook, or you'll starve to death." I still can't cook a bag of rice, but I'm not starving to death. The reason is simple: online food delivery. Eating out every day used to be expensive and time-consuming, but now takeout saves time and isn't expensive. In many cases, it's more cost-effective than cooking for yourself, even more so than marrying someone who can cook. Housework can also be outsourced: home delivery services like Ayibang and 58 Daojia leverage the sharing economy to combine idle time and labor, directly replacing the need for a housekeeper. Add to that the laundry machines, dishwashers, and dry cleaners, and chores have been simplified to the point of "pushing a button." Therefore, much of the "cost and time savings" that marriage brings can be addressed through social services.

Let's consider the premise of "men supporting women." The Industrial Revolution and the Internet Revolution ushered in the knowledge economy. The marginal value of physical strength declined, and "male strength" was no longer the defining characteristic of productivity. Since the 20th century, women's equality has steadily advanced, with women enjoying equal opportunities and incomes with men in most fields, and even surpassing them in many industries. Consequently, the old premise that "men must support women and children" has gradually disintegrated. In the past, divorce could threaten women's survival; now, at least in cities and across most industries, women have achieved considerable economic independence. While the concept of "male superiority" or the objectification of women as tradable resources persists, it's undeniable that, economically, equality between women and men is steadily increasing, and the necessity of the family as a "one-way support system" is naturally declining. Furthermore, the social responsibility of the family as the sole provider of care for the elderly and children is waning. In agricultural societies, families relied on the support of the family because public services were inadequate. However, in the 21st century, social security and pension systems have been gradually improving in most developed countries, as well as in major Chinese cities. Public and market-based services such as education, healthcare, and childcare are also expanding. While the family remains important, it is no longer the only, nor necessarily the only, component of the family.

Question: Life in China’s big cities is so difficult. Do you want to go back to your hometown?

Justin Sun: I don't think life in big cities is easy at all, but the perception that "living in big cities is extremely difficult" is largely exaggerated. Why is it exaggerated? Because directors and media professionals are largely concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Smaller cities lack a mature entertainment industry, and almost no one wants to film or tell stories from those places. What do the media like? "A dog bites a man is not news, but a man bites a dog is news." Living well isn't news; living a miserable life is dramatic. As a result, the theme of "the miserable life of migrant workers in Beijing" is repeatedly filmed and told, creating the illusion that life in big cities is difficult.

I'm not being completely unconcerned. I've also experienced times when I had very little money. Back then, in Beijing, I made 1,000 yuan a month, supported by my father. It was tight, and hard, but not as extreme as I'd imagined. At least I could afford three meals a day, and I still had dreams and hopes. There was certainly pressure, from the struggle itself, but I don't think it was a struggle that made me "unable to survive." Big cities are called "big cities" because they create jobs and opportunities every day far more than their population increases. Companies like ours, "Peiwo," sometimes face cash flow constraints, but we still need young people; if operations improve, we need to hire even more. As long as a young person is able to work, willing to learn, and has some internet knowledge, they are generally in demand in big cities and don't have to struggle.

On the other hand, the real problems begin when returning to one's hometown, especially in areas with a single industrial structure and lower levels of development. Many places have only primary and secondary industries, which rarely require young people's creativity and trial and error. Management positions are highly rigid and mobility is low. Even when new hires are hired, they are often assigned to purely physical, repetitive assembly processes, which offer little value and little room for growth. In many places, machines are more suitable than humans. Jobs that truly require ideas, creativity, drive, and dedication are mostly concentrated in big cities. Therefore, I have always believed that big cities belong to young people—no matter how hard or tiring the work, it's worth persevering. You say you're going back for "stability," but with a salary of one or two thousand, your resilience to risk is almost completely compromised at the slightest sign of trouble. Furthermore, when you're older, returning is not only expensive, but also because the window of opportunity has long passed, making it even more difficult to reenter a big city. Therefore, my advice to young people is clear: prioritize big cities and try not to leave easily.

Q: Do women continue to lose value as they age?

Justin Sun: To some extent, this is why we've always urged people born in the 1990s to postpone marriage. As you develop and rise in social status, you'll see a wider world and be able to make more mature and better choices. Let me give you a perhaps somewhat utilitarian, but illustrative example: a 17-year-old rural girl who hasn't had access to mobile internet and hasn't passed the college entrance exam to leave her hometown might marry before she's 20. The potential partners she'll meet will be limited to those in her village or town, often those facing the most oppressive social status. But if she waits a few years longer and gets admitted to a reputable university, or gains new opportunities through mobile internet, such as opening a Taobao account, creating a WeChat official account, becoming a live streamer, or becoming an internet celebrity, her potential marriage partners will become university classmates or the diverse network of people she's connected to in the internet world. Moving forward, she might start a business, enter a large-scale enterprise ecosystem, or even study, work, and expand her career abroad. She'll have access to a wider range of people and industries, and a wider range of choices. As she progressed from 17 to 27, and even to 37, the number of people who appreciated her, tolerated her, and truly shared her vision was far beyond the initial radius of her reach. Ultimately, marriage can bring a higher sense of happiness because it improves oneself in all aspects; marriage is merely a means to achieve this improvement and happiness, and it itself relies heavily on the advancement of one's own abilities.

Secondly, in the internet age, childbearing is no longer a voluntary obligation, nor is the uterus the sole source of a woman's value. Recently, a landmark event occurred: Xu Jinglei went to the United States to freeze her eggs. I believe that egg freezing and surrogacy are likely to become fashionable choices for young women in the future, presenting enormous industrial opportunities. There is significant room for development around this "three-view industry chain." For women, egg freezing and surrogacy are likely to become essential needs.

Furthermore, if you want to break the myth that "women lose value with age," it's best to go to big cities where internet ethics prevail, rather than smaller cities dominated by traditional mores. Morality reflects the stage of a society's development and is subject to change. In places where traditional economies and institutions prevail, the "Three Obediences and Four Virtues" and "A woman's virtue lies in her lack of talent" still prevail, emphasizing obedience to parents and husbands. Women who pursue independence and happiness, regardless of whether they marry or not, are often accused of being "immoral." In big cities, however, personal value and personal advancement are the most important "moral" values. Using traditional values to pressure others becomes immoral. For example, our 28-year-old female listener might have been criticized in her hometown of Henan, saying, "It's shameful for you to be unmarried at such an age." But in Beijing, few would say such things to her face, and even in private, the rate is very low. The tolerance and diverse lifestyles of cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen make it difficult to impose uniform moral judgments that impose pressure on individuals. This is why we repeatedly emphasize: You must find people like you in big cities. Don't waste your time fighting traditional morals in a small city. What you need to do is to encounter another version of yourself. You can definitely find people with similar values in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. We also don't recommend that people with this mindset stay in a small city and "struggle"; they should still move to a big city.

Therefore, the question of "whether women continue to lose value with age" is inherently flawed. According to the internet's methodology and worldview, people, whether male or female, are the greatest carriers of value in our times and society. Age, fertility, or appearance aren't decisive factors; what truly separates people is often their level of effort and their path to growth.

Question: If your wife and mother fall into the water at the same time, who should you save first?

Justin Sun: Marriage is sacred. Once you enter into marriage, you leave your family and form a new one with your partner. In this sense, your vow to this family is even stronger than your vow to your parents, because this is the first vow you have actively chosen in your life. When this vow is challenged, you must do everything you can to defend this vow of freedom.

So, as a true man, his response is, of course, to save his wife first, because his vow to his wife was a vow he freely chose, while his vow to his mother was a vow born of blood ties. And we know that in a truly civilized nation, any vow chosen voluntarily takes precedence over a vow made by blood ties, because blood ties are unchosen. This is similar to how debts are prioritized in the regular economy. It's the same debt, and you should repay it, but there's a certain priority in which one you repay first. A key way to determine this priority is whether the vow was made voluntarily, and this is crucial.

Is it cold-blooded not to provide a safety net for family relationships?

Q: You often talk about maintaining boundaries with your parents. Isn't it cruel or cold-blooded to not help your parents or your younger siblings? After all, in family life, there can be joy without distinctions between you and me.

Justin Sun: Let me take some time today to respond to this question in detail; I will talk about the issue of "whether to remember money" later.

Let's talk about "cold-bloodedness" first. I actually believe that the distribution of "sex and power" is more cold-blooded; money, in a sense, is warmer. This is because money doesn't discriminate against anyone; it gives you the possibility to change your destiny: as long as you have money, you have the potential to turn things around, to change your power and status within your family, society, and nation. Conversely, the distribution of gender/bloodline is a fixed one: in traditional families, women often have no rights. No matter how hard they try, they are essentially treated as "tradable resources," "sold" by their parents to subsidize the growth and development of men. If the distribution isn't based on money, then it reverts to the distribution of "sex and power."

From this perspective, the distribution of "sex and power" is even more cold-blooded. And even if we're talking about "cold-bloodedness," it's not about cold-blooded values, but cold-blooded reality. The fundamental laws of the world are simple: if you want to reap, you must first sow; if someone wants to spend money, someone else must earn it. There's no such thing as free lunch, nor is there "reaping without sowing" or "having money without earning it." We're simply expressing a set of values that better aligns with reality.

To put it bluntly: it's as simple as 1+1=2. A country's high welfare benefits are necessarily based on higher taxes on those who contribute more, so that those who don't contribute as much can enjoy the benefits. The state itself does not generate tax revenue; it is merely an organization that collects and redistributes taxes, and aside from operating losses, it does not directly produce value. Therefore, if the state wants to give money to person A, it must first take money from person B. What many people fail to fully grasp is this principle of "no free lunch": if someone gains from distribution, someone else must give up; unless someone makes the "pie" bigger. But we also know that the hardest thing in the world is precisely to make the pie bigger and earn money.

Therefore, these three perspectives aren't inherently cold-blooded or cold-blooded; they simply reveal the truth. Furthermore, if we must compare, the distribution of "sex and power" is colder; the distribution of "money and freedom" is better. Dissatisfaction with this often stems from a "shoot the messenger" mentality: refusing to confront the facts and instead taking out our anger on the person who spoke them.

There's an anecdote from the Roman Republic: King Tiglas II of Armenia received a messenger informing him that the renowned Roman general Lucullus was leading an invading army. Furious, he exclaimed, "How dare you bring such bad news!" He then beheaded the messenger. But beheading the messenger didn't change the fact that the Roman army was already on its way. After that, no one dared to report on the battle until the king himself was captured by Lucullus and beheaded. Shakespeare often depicts this plot. The principle is the same: we don't create "cold-blooded reality," we simply articulate it.

Furthermore, I'm not pessimistic about human nature. Today's society is generally improving. The distribution of "money and freedom" is fairer, more flexible, and leaves more room for individuals to reshape their own destiny than the distribution of "sex and power." So, rather than being cold-blooded, it's better to be clear-headed. Only by laying the facts out in the open and drawing clear boundaries can we discuss family affection, responsibility, and mutual assistance, and avoid turning love into exploitation.

Question: Do your parents hope that you will become a civil servant or work for a state-owned enterprise?

Justin Sun: That's a very good question. I think this is the expectation of most Chinese parents for my generation, including my father. Because I attended Peking University for my undergraduate studies, many parents assumed that since I got in, especially in a liberal arts department majoring in history or Chinese, it would be best if I could join a government agency like the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, the Ministry of Finance, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within my first year of graduation, or work at a monopoly state-owned enterprise like Minmetals, CNPC, or Sinopec, earning a living and settling down in Beijing. This would satisfy my father's sense of "my son has connections in Beijing."

But from the beginning, I knew I wasn't cut out for it. I remember one time when my dad came to Peking University to walk with me, and I laid out my true feelings with him: These places offer virtually no room for creativity, and they severely suppress young people's creativity. The only value a young person has there is being obedient, being a cog in the wheel, being an execution tool with no autonomy. What they offer is a semblance of stability: 5,000 yuan a month, the promise of a possible "housing allocation" in the future, some illusory benefits, and the psychological comfort of "not getting fired."

But I don't believe in the idea of "not being fired." China experienced massive layoffs in state-owned enterprises in the 1990s. During Mao Zedong's era, the "iron rice bowl"—or even the "steel rice bowl"—was shattered in the 1990s. Since history has proven otherwise, what reason is there to continue believing in the "iron rice bowl" today?

Furthermore, the young people who enter these systems are already exceptional compared to their peers. With a little effort, earning 10,000 yuan in the market is perfectly normal. No one worth 10,000 yuan would be grateful for 5,000 yuan, congratulating themselves on "at least they didn't get fired." This mindset suggests a low expectation of one's own abilities. You're not that bad; you're simply trapped by the narrative of low pay and "stability."

Third, so-called stability is built on low pay and low growth, with virtually no impact on skill development. The daily work content is vastly different from what you'd learn at a startup or internet company. The gap becomes stark two or three years after graduation. Many people pay a heavy price for their initial choice of "stability."

Therefore, I don't recommend anyone consider becoming a civil servant or working in a state-owned enterprise as the default choice. Parents' insistence on us taking the exam is likely based on the experiences and narratives of their generation—a stereotype, a trap posed by a fixed path. The real choice should come down to personal character, ability, ambition, and the pace of life you desire.

Q: Have you ever had a big argument with your parents? What was it about?

Justin Sun: My relationship with my parents was definitely strained for a while. It's a little funny now, but at the time, it was truly difficult. The biggest conflict occurred during my junior and senior years of college, when I was preparing to move to the US—strictly speaking, it was 2011 and 2012. The reason was simple: money was tight in the US, and the financial pressure was immense. And I chose to do the most "poor" thing possible: start a business. Under that pressure, my relationship with my parents began to deteriorate.

They also didn't quite understand the investment I made to study abroad. At the time, spending $300,000 a year in the US was a sum they felt would be better spent buying a house or doing something else in China. They saw it as a more "stable" arrangement; to me, studying abroad was an investment in myself, a self-improvement. This difference in perspective was essentially a clash between the traditional path and my more avant-garde approach.

For a while, the arguments were so intense that they even stopped supporting me financially. Life abroad was incredibly difficult for me. Looking back, I did gradually influence my parents, and they now accept many of my views. But this change shouldn't come at the cost of hurting feelings or even suspending payments—I was the one who suffered, and everyone else was hurt. If I had to do it again, I would still hold the same stance, but I would handle the situation more gently and communicate more gently.

Question: What do you think of parents saying they will provide a safety net for their children’s future?

Justin Sun: First and foremost, I personally believe that there should be no obligation to provide a safety net, not just in relationships with parents, but in any relationship. What is a safety net obligation? It's the idea that no matter how bad you are, I'll take care of you. Imposing this on someone, or even actually doing it, is wrong. Of course, we know that in real life, most situations involve explicitly stating your obligation to provide a safety net, claiming you have the ability to do so, but then, when they actually ask you to, you simply can't. This is often the most common scenario. So, if you can't provide a safety net, you shouldn't have offered to provide a safety net in the first place. Children shouldn't provide a safety net for their parents, and parents shouldn't provide a safety net for their children. This is similar to my personal belief that the state shouldn't provide a safety net for its citizens, and citizens shouldn't provide a safety net for the state. The obligations of the state and individuals, and the obligations of parents and children, are the same.

Moreover, most tragedies in our lives often arise when you hint at or expect a backup plan, only to find that you're unable to provide it. This huge disparity in expectations and the resulting lack of support can lead to numerous tragedies. Recently, for example, I saw in the news someone violently assaulting their parents because they couldn't buy them a wedding house. The tragedy itself stems from the fact that parents shouldn't expect their children to buy a wedding house, and you have no obligation to do so. Of course, you won't be able to buy one in the end. Therefore, the rift caused by this disparity is often a crucial factor in destroying relationships. This mismatch in expectations and the significant problems caused by the obligation to provide a backup plan are the root causes of these relationships.

I've met many people who, when taking the college entrance exam, always believed their parents could help them find connections and get into a good university. However, in the end, most of them discovered that this wasn't reliable. This reliance on their parents led them to slack off, ultimately leading them to attend a poorly educated school. This is just a very simple example. We all know that success in this society is a complex process. I succeeded, but it sounds easy, but the essence is the same. As we've discussed in previous lessons, success is a complex multi-dimensional competition of variables. Parents have very few variables to control, so can you really count on your parents' help to ensure success? This is naive, just like the single-variable thinking we discussed earlier: "If I just do this, then everything will happen." This is a very naive, single-variable mindset. I know countless examples of wealthy second-generation entrepreneurs who have lost 30 to 40 million yuan in startups, losing everything. Furthermore, their parents are all very successful entrepreneurs themselves. I won't name them here to avoid offending anyone. However, I do know countless outstanding Chinese entrepreneurs whose children have lost everything when starting their own businesses. So think about it, their parents are so outstanding in China, some of them are even on the Forbes list, but they are unable to help their children truly achieve true success in actual entrepreneurship.

For most people, how can you really expect your parents to make you successful? Ultimately, everything depends on yourself. Therefore, I strongly encourage everyone to not place excessive demands or expectations on their parents. While raising you is an obligation, if they truly don't do enough, there's really nothing you can do. I hope everyone won't have excessive expectations on this point, because it's ultimately a matter of self-awareness.

Secondly, I believe that raising a child should be considered a parental obligation. I'm 26 years old, and I believe I'll likely have children within the next 10 years. For my daughter or son, raising them is my natural obligation. My child didn't choose to come into this world; I forced them into this world. They didn't vote or choose to come into this world of their own accord. I brought them into this world by force, so raising them is my unwavering obligation. And like Justin Sun, I wouldn't use my past as a primary excuse to demand compensation from them in the future, or even to control their lives. I absolutely wouldn't do that, and it's inherently untenable legally.

Third, I believe children have an obligation to help their parents establish a safety net. This means, for example, helping them with a certain level of insurance, making certain arrangements for their future, and providing the legally mandated support. However, when making these arrangements, you should strive to stay within the parents' own capabilities and not provide assistance beyond your obligations. What does this mean? Even if you help your parents buy insurance, you're buying it and choosing it, but they still have to pay for it. And then, you should provide the legally mandated support, but not provide assistance beyond your obligations. I believe that as long as children do this, that's basically all they need.

Fifth, human relationships have their ups and downs. This is perfectly normal. You interact with everyone in the world, but you can't have close relationships with everyone. And you might have many enemies, many enemies. This is perfectly normal. So, I believe that after meeting the four points I just mentioned, the quality of your relationships with your friends and parents is not the right of others to discuss.