In a recent article, I quoted a tech blogger who commented on cryptocurrency ecosystem investors, suggesting that he believes the vast majority of players in the crypto ecosystem lack even basic common sense and are purely gamblers.

The common sense emphasized by this blogger refers to some fundamental elements that must be considered in business investment, such as the necessity for a project to have a business model, in other words, it must be able to provide value, generate sustainable income, and produce profits.

Applying this understanding to the crypto ecosystem means that, aside from assets considered similar to Bitcoin, other projects should also be evaluated based on their business models.

When I first heard this statement, I felt a bit resistant.

Because over the past few years, at least for myself, I haven't paid much attention to the "business models" of the projects I participated in. What I mainly focused on was the so-called "grand narrative."

Using this approach, I still managed to make money over the years. Why?

Looking back now, I think it was mostly luck.

Duan Yongping once commented on a case.

In that case, a player was flamboyantly making things work, spouting various flashy terms. Duan Yongping said that this player must have made quite a bit of money using this method in the past.

After reading this commentary, I felt a chill run down my back.

To continue participating in the investment market, it is impossible to rely on flashy tactics and jargon in the long term; one must return to the common sense of investing and the essence of investment.

Duan Yongping provided a very intuitive description of Buffett's investment and venture capital:

Buffett's capital is very large, so his targets are all large companies. For smaller companies, even if he finds them, he often cannot invest because these companies cannot accommodate the amount of capital he wishes to invest heavily.

For small capital investors, they can seek opportunities in more small companies in the market, which will yield returns far better than those of large companies; this is venture capital.

Although these two investment methods are different, the companies they seek are essentially the same; they both look for companies that can continuously generate value, with good business models, good corporate culture, and good pricing.

Coincidentally, in the past few days, I watched an interview with Zhu Xiaohu, where he particularly emphasized that the companies he invests in must be commercializable and that this commercialization must be sustainable.

These are all the essence of business.

In his interview, he mentioned a very hot "little dragon" that is likely to go public on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and perform very well in the current environment.

However, he still prefers companies with good fundamentals.

In the crypto ecosystem, there are countless "little dragons" like this. They have grand narratives, align well with the current trends people are chasing, and fit the hot topics being discussed. We know that once they are listed, their token prices will experience a surge. We understand that whoever can grab the tokens first can profit from this wave of excitement.

Around this idea, guessing market sentiment, analyzing on-chain data, exploring insider information, and going long or short naturally became a series of subsequent operations.

However, their business models and whether they can sustain themselves are hardly discussed, let alone explored in depth.

Grand narratives can be imagined, and great stories can be told, but narratives and stories ultimately depend on whether they can be transformed into viable business models. Otherwise, relying solely on storytelling is destined to be unsustainable, leading to a scene of chaos after the excitement fades.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。