2026-01-01 22:22:44

Honestly, although many people advocate going all in on cryptocurrencies, if you haven't accumulated enough principal, my suggestion is to consider another approach: first, save up startup capital through stable employment, then allocate some products with strong yield certainty as the foundation, and from there, set aside a portion to participate in crypto assets. The benefits of this approach are clear—risk can be controlled, and you won't miss out on high-growth opportunities. In other words, you need capital to play high-risk games. Without initial accumulation, going all in recklessly will likely lead to losses. Therefore, the prudent approach is: stable income → asset allocation → layered deployment, allowing low-risk and high-risk to each stay in their own place.

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

StablecoinAnxiety

· 6h ago

There's something here. Finally, I see someone dare to tell the truth. Too many rookies listen to every word and must go all in to feel happy. Living expenses are not even covered, and you're still dreaming. First, stabilize the money you have, then talk. You need a solid foundation, and only then should you use your spare money to gamble. This is the way to survive until the end. Without hard-earned money as a cushion, going all in is just reckless. Wake up, everyone. Be more realistic. With capital, you can play these high-risk games. It makes sense. The layered approach is stable. Low risk and high risk each have their place. Once your capital is sufficient, consider going all in; otherwise, it's a suicidal move.

View OriginalReply0

Layer3Dreamer

· 6h ago

theoretically speaking, if we map this onto a cross-rollup asset allocation framework... the recursive nature of capital preservation actually mirrors zk-proof verification, right? you gotta establish your base layer first before scaling up. it's like building interoperability—can't bridge state if there's no canonical truth to reference. the math checks out fr

Reply0

MindsetExpander

· 6h ago

This guy is so right, going all in without any background is just courting death. Wanting to soar without any capital? Wake up, everyone. Basically, you need food to fight a war. The logic of asset allocation is indeed perfect, but most people just can't control themselves. I deeply agree; layered planning is the way to go. Listen to this, reality is so cruel. Figure out your own strength before going all in. People with some accumulation naturally understand this principle; those without can only take it slow. This is the kind of mindset adults should have.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiChallenger

· 6h ago

Ironically, this set of words is repeated every bear market, but very few people actually listen. Data shows that most people with initial accumulation did not stick to their allocation plans; they go all-in during a bull market. It seems you have to suffer losses to truly understand this principle. Wait, what does "high certainty of returns" mean? 3% financial products... Objectively speaking, those who can truly implement layered allocation have long achieved financial freedom. Why are we still debating this? Interesting, this logic could have been applied in 2017, but where are the people who used to talk about it now? But to be honest, going all-in is indeed a common flaw for most people. Greed kills. This idea isn't wrong; the key is execution. Most people simply can't allocate assets proportionally.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedDreams

· 6h ago

It's quite realistic, but people with less principal will just listen to this and take it as a joke, haha. --- All-in players are those who haven't experienced a margin call. Once you've been cut once, you'll understand. --- This logic has no flaws; it's just that most people can't follow through. It's too tough. --- Here's a question: when is the "enough" principal? --- It's a common saying, but it's truly the only way to survive. --- It sounds reasonable, but few can actually implement layered planning. --- It's called "steady" in a nice way, but in a harsh way, it just means lacking the guts to gamble. --- That's why the poor keep getting poorer; foundational accumulation is too important.

View OriginalReply0

DaoTherapy

· 6h ago

It's reasonable, but the reality is that most people can't wait that long. I think this logic is sound; stable income is the foundation. What happened to the all-in people later, understand? If you don't have enough funds and still want to get rich quick, you need to fix this mindset first. Layered deployment sounds good, but it's difficult to execute.

View OriginalReply0