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 threshold, then it must be fake. Why? Because there’s no way there are that many 5 million waiting for everyone to earn.
5 million is just a reference; it refers to methods that can generate far exceeding normal returns in a short period. If it’s actually not high threshold, and still universal, then who is the one far exceeding 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 clearly explaining what principles to follow, 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, surrounding resources, and strengths are different, 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 simple that even a fool has resources and ability to follow through, and finally can make big money— is that possible? It’s possible, but only if I teach you alone, for example, if there’s an information gap, and you earn while others can’t, just that window of opportunity. 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 say some method because the money-making window can’t accommodate everyone. But why should I tell you first-hand? Who are you to me? Just think about it—it's obviously impossible.
The "Dao" is very specific, but its application is often limited. What our parents teach us is often about techniques—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 kinds of different. You can’t treat all relationships the same way. To truly understand why you should adopt certain attitudes towards certain people, and what the underlying logic is, you must learn the "Dao."
Take investment 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" rules, like in the past year, every time something happened, the price moved in a certain way, so they think they’ve discovered a remarkable rule, believe they’ve mastered the printing money technique. But then they find that next time, the price doesn’t behave that way—magical? No, it’s not magical. Overfitting means you chase too many details, causing many "coincidences" to be mistaken for rules. Remember PlanB, the foreigner in the crypto circle? He has millions of followers on Twitter, and a few years ago, he predicted Bitcoin’s highs almost perfectly every few months. 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 every time they change position or go to the bathroom, they win money. So when they lose, they change position or go to the bathroom again. When they go to the bathroom and still lose, they start overfitting—no, previously 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 it gets, the more meaningless it becomes. For example, some students like to "backtest" in trading, right? Backtesting itself is good, but if a strategy is relatively coarse, trading assets with large market caps, fewer trades, over the past five years, with 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 rule. After a few more years, your "improved strategy" might lose. Life is the same—grasp the big direction, know what’s right, 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—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, ultimately it’s the same path, and life won’t be bad. But if you ignore the big picture and focus on "Do you understand where the fish head should point?" "Knocking on the boss’s door determines whether you get promoted," "Whether giving colleagues bubble tea shows your high EQ"—then you’ll find what you learn seems like "very practical tips," but no matter how long you live, your life won’t change because those things are useless. Change the boss, change colleagues, change scenarios, and it might backfire.
Think carefully about #Gate广场五月交易分享