2026-01-01 11:24:21

Honestly, if you want to make stable money (even just continuous profits within half a year), you must first pass a hurdle. First, withdraw $80,000, which is your survival fund, and do not touch it. The remaining $20,000 should be split into 20 parts, each $1,000. Then, it's all about trial and error—lose one part, replenish it, and continue. If all 20 parts are lost? Then you might really need to consider changing careers. But if you persist until the end and still have a balance, it means you've already grasped the pulse of this market. Interestingly, at this stage, that $80,000 is no longer important. Not because you've become rich, but because your mindset has changed.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BugBountyHunter

· 01-02 09:08

Damn, I like this logic... most people give up after not making it to the 15th attempt. --- 100,000 startup capital discourages 99% of people, honestly. --- The phrase "thinking differently" hit home, and money becomes a byproduct instead. --- Only realizing after losing 20 attempts? That takes a tough mindset... I guess I would have broken down after losing 3 attempts. --- The core is to separate tuition and living expenses—that's the difference between a genius and a fool. --- I feel this logic also applies to futures... after all, it's all about using money to feed the market and learn lessons. --- Having 80,000 in survival funds is much more meaningful; the key is not to fall back to zero. --- The problem is most people don't even have 100,000 to try and fail, and many go back to square one overnight.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityLurker

· 01-02 03:09

This idea has some merit. To put it simply, it's about using 20,000 capital to gain genuine market knowledge, with 80,000 serving as a psychological safety net.

View OriginalReply0

ConsensusDissenter

· 01-01 11:54

This is the cost of rookie mistakes, risking $100,000 to play 20 rounds with the market.

View OriginalReply0

AirDropMissed

· 01-01 11:54

This theory sounds good, but a hundred thousand dollars is already a threshold, and most people can't even come up with that. --- When losing all 20 shares, your mentality is probably already broken. Being able to stick with it until you have a balance really depends on mental resilience. --- The core still boils down to this—survival funds should be separated, and risk funds are for daring to gamble? It's a common saying, but some people just can't do it. --- Let's be straightforward, most people start regretting after losing the 5th share, how can they hold out until the 20th? --- This logic is a bit absolute; the market pulse isn't that easy to read, and luck plays a significant role. --- The description that "8万变不重要" is interesting, meaning that in the end, earning money is about mindset, right? --- Wait, are you sure that after losing one share, you need to buy another? Wouldn't that mean there's no risk management concept? --- The real key is whether you can withstand psychological pressure. Don't even talk about making money; first, you need to handle the fear of losses.

View OriginalReply0

ILCollector

· 01-01 11:53

This logic sounds pretty heartbreaking. To put it simply, it's like using 20,000 to buy lessons... Wait, after losing all 20 shares, how does the mindset change? Has the mentality gone bankrupt? It's easy to say to stick it out until the end... how many people can really endure until that moment? I agree with the survival fund of 80,000, but the reality is that most people can't even gather that 100,000, let alone try and error. Changing mindset ≠ making money, these are two different things, right?

View OriginalReply0

ForkYouPayMe

· 01-01 11:45

This logic makes sense; it's just about paying tuition in installments.

View OriginalReply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 01-01 11:34

I have to say, this logic sounds quite clear-headed. --- The probability of losing all 20 shares... let's not deceive ourselves. --- The real question is, who actually has this $100,000? --- Stop-loss is the key to being a winner; everything else is just a story. --- Changing mindset > account numbers, I agree with that. --- Feeling the pulse? Don't boast yet, let's wait until the end. --- Withdrawing 80,000 is the hardest step; a slight tremor and everything is gone. --- The cost of trial and error is too high; most people can't bear it.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinGuardian

· 01-01 11:33

This logic is actually correct, but the key question is whether that $80,000 can really be preserved? --- The cost of trial and error is so high, how can ordinary people bear it? --- Losing all 20 times definitely means changing careers, but I bet the probability of making it to the end is much lower than you think. --- Thinking really can change, that's quite true, but the premise is to survive the first hurdle first. --- I just want to ask how many people can really resist touching that $80,000... --- It's easy to say, but nine and a half out of ten people give up halfway when it comes to execution. --- Market pulse? Sounds a bit mystical, but you really have to experience it to understand. --- This set of logic has a bit of a gambler's flavor, but in the long run, you really need to verify yourself this way. --- Saving the principal with $80,000 is clever, but the premise is that you really have that money. --- That last sentence hits the hardest; a change in thinking is the real way to make money.

View OriginalReply0

ChainWallflower

· 01-01 11:32

I've read this logic many times, but those who truly stick with it... hmm, it's probably just a handful.

View OriginalReply0