Recently testing the testnet points, I found that the moment it shifts from "practicing feel" to "what should I get out of it," is already leveraging, just not in the position size but in expectations. To put it simply, stop-loss is first set in terms of time and attention: at most 1 hour per day, if after two consecutive days I can't understand it or the rules keep changing, I stop; another is financial stop-loss—once you start patching holes in cross-chain or authorization, consider the cost already blown, don’t chase.

A few days ago, I experienced this once: a testnet bridge, with a bunch of buttons on the interface, I thought it wanted me to "interact more to earn more points," but the path was completely opaque... In the end, I just closed it. If I don’t understand, I don’t act; missing out is fine, anyway points shouldn’t be more valuable than a sense of security.

Recently, everyone has been complaining about validator income, MEV, unfair ordering, and I can understand. Sometimes the incentive system on-chain just squeezes "hard-working people" into "contributing traffic." So now I prefer to do less brushing, and think clearly about the model: who am I feeding data to, and who is taking the marginal gains. That’s it for now.