Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
I once wrote an article about the daddy type, where I wanted to express:
Using money to save time costs and meet physiological and short-term emotional needs.
And now I want to extend this topic—discuss love from the daddy type perspective.
The view of money in an intimate relationship is what we call love (non-daddy type), essentially reflecting your relationship structure.
Should men spend more money?
Is it objectification if women want money?
The real key is not whether money is spent or not,
but whether money is actively given or structurally demanded.
Once in a relationship, if money becomes an “expected supply,”
the power center of that relationship has already shifted.
It’s not about who spends more money being stronger,
but about who can freely choose to give or not give, and thus hold the power.
Once money shifts from “active giving” to “passive demand,” the underlying logic of the relationship changes.
Money is the result of labor, a condensation of time and energy. It should be an extension of emotion, not a prerequisite for the relationship.
If a relationship becomes:
“I accompany you, I invest emotionally, I’m young, so you should support me,”
it is no longer an intimate relationship but an attachment structure.
What I dislike is never about expressing needs.
What I dislike is—
treating the other’s contributions as obligations,
outsourcing one’s happiness to others,
and viewing “Are you willing to spend money on me” as the only proof of love.
Actively spending money on the other person and being asked to pay are seemingly the same outcome, but the logic is completely opposite.
Because once you enter “demand” mode, the relationship is no longer an intimate one, but:
Emotions are priced,
Contributions are evaluated,
Love is quantified.
You start calculating in your mind:
“Is what I give you worth it?”
“Besides you, is there someone more cost-effective?”
When this kind of calculation begins, love is already over.
Love is not “You want me to give,”
but “I am willing because you are worth it.”
When a relationship needs money to prove its value,
it has long lost the qualification of love.
The truly good relationship is based on independence, co-survival, mutual help and support.
Love has never been “You want me to give,”
but “I am willing because you are worth it.”
It’s not “I rely on you to live,”
but “With you, I live better.”
So, I can spend money on you, but you cannot actively demand it.