Why is the Way more important than Technique?

Yesterday during the live broadcast, a student asked me in the chat, "Can you teach me how to earn 5 million?" I replied, "If I could say a universal method to make 5 million in a live stream, and it had no barriers, then it must be fake. Why? Because there’s no way there are that many 5 million opportunities waiting for everyone to seize."

5 million is just a reference; it refers to methods that can generate far exceeding normal returns in a short period. If such a method is actually not high-threshold and is universal, then who is the one that surpasses the ordinary? Who is the denominator? Why should others be the denominator instead of also earning that 5 million?

Whether it’s the investment strategies I share, capital allocation, or earning cognition, most of it is about the "Dao" level—meaning clarifying the principles to follow and why it must be done this way, and what the consequences are if not—rarely are there extreme claims; most are supported by logical reasoning "why only doing it this way is correct."

And for each individual, because everyone’s cash flow, asset reserves, risk preferences, resources around them, and skills differ, naturally the application will be diverse. How can everyone do the same fixed action in a herd and all make big money?

Many people pursue a very certain "Technique," ideally with very specific behavioral instructions, so detailed that even a fool with resources and ability can follow and eventually make big money—can this be done? Possibly, but only if I teach you alone, for example, if there’s an information gap that only you can exploit, and I don’t have time to do it myself, so I let you do it. That’s the only way. It’s impossible to publicly reveal something because the window for making money can’t accommodate everyone. But why should I tell you first? Who are you to me? Just think about it—it's obviously impossible.

"Technique" is very specific, but its application is often limited. What our parents teach us is usually technique, like how to deal with leaders, teachers, classmates when we’re young, how to work when we grow up, how to treat colleagues, how to treat spouses, etc.—these are useless. Why? Because environments and people are all different. You can’t treat all relationships the same way. To truly understand why you should adopt certain attitudes toward certain people, and what the underlying logic is, you must learn the "Dao."

Take investing as an example. Many traders tend to fall into "overfitting" at the "technique" level. What is overfitting? It’s pursuing very detailed changes and summarizing "self-righteous" patterns, like noticing that in the past year, every time something happened, the price moved in a certain way, so they think they’ve discovered an incredible pattern, believing they’ve mastered the printing money technique. But then they find that the next time, the price doesn’t behave that way—magical? No, overfitting means your focus on details is too fine, causing you to mistake chance for pattern. Remember PlanB, the foreigner in crypto with millions of followers on Twitter? A few years ago, he predicted Bitcoin’s highs almost perfectly every few months, and many regarded him as a deity. But after one mistake, he kept making errors, and it became uncontrollable—what is this? Overfitting. How can Bitcoin’s short-term price be precisely calculated with a "formula"? The more precise the calculation, the more likely the algorithm is wrong.

Some gamblers find that they win every time they change positions or go to the bathroom, so when they lose, they switch positions or go to the bathroom again. When they go to the bathroom and still lose, they start overfitting—no, before, they took over a minute, now only 30 seconds, so 30 seconds is wrong, next time they need over a minute to win. This overfitting is meaningless; the finer the focus, the more meaningless it becomes. For example, some students like to "backtest" in trading, right? Backtesting itself is good, but if you have a rough strategy, trading assets with large market caps, fewer trades, and over five years yields an average annual profit over 10%; and if you fine-tune parameters, trade smaller assets more frequently, and the annual profit exceeds 10.5%, should you improve it? The answer is no, don’t improve it, because you might not have found the correct pattern. After a few more years, your "improved strategy" might lose out. Life is the same—grasp the big direction, know what’s right, and that’s enough. The rest is execution.

What if you lack execution? That’s just another way of saying you don’t understand it thoroughly enough. As for the details of implementation, everyone is different, and that’s not important. For example, how to treat work, investment, interpersonal relationships, how to solve problems when faced with difficulties, etc.—everyone has similar cognition. So even if industries differ, the ultimate principles are the same, and life won’t be bad. But if you ignore the big picture and focus on "Do you understand where the fish head should face?" "Whether knocking on the boss’s door determines your promotion and salary increase," "Whether giving colleagues bubble tea shows high emotional intelligence"—then you’ll find that what you learn seems like "very practical tips," but your life won’t change no matter how long you live, because those things are useless. Change the boss, change colleagues, change scenarios, and they might backfire. Think carefully about #Gate广场五月交易分享 .