Nowadays, the marginal effect of any Meme will become increasingly low, and the game between investors and players will become more and more obvious. In the past, it used to be a matter of mutual benefit, where everyone worked together to make money in the market, but now it has become a situation where either you die or I live. The main reason should be that it did not follow the principle of "making money in the coin circle and spending money in the coin circle". The overall market environment is not good, and the pattern of investors is starting to decline. If they win, they will continue to play OTC with the remaining money, and if they win again, they will continue to play OTC. If they lose, they will enter a watching mode, which leads to a continuous decrease in active funds on the exchange. How can we see the decrease in active funds? It's actually quite simple. Just look at the price trends of SOL and BNB, both of which are "buying tools". When the buying tool keeps rising, it corresponds to an increase in investors' FOMO sentiment, and the marginal effect is on the rise. When both buying tools start to decline, it means that the number of exiting investors is greater than the number of entering investors. Especially when the profits from non Meme loyal users are generated, this portion of funds is completely withdrawn without the opportunity for other users to share the profits. This is a very obvious principle. It may be wrong to adopt the approach of increasing marginal effects when marginal effects are decreasing, such as increasing larger funds, insisting on doubling before investing, having a large pattern, or thinking that there must be a second wave (third wave). Another logic of diminishing marginal effects is whether there is a new major trend in the track, such as the previous animal series shifting to the Ai series, and then the Ai series shifting to the celebrity series. Therefore, whether there is a new trend in the celebrity series in the future, or whether the old trend has an overall rebound trend, if not, it means that top investors and players have become very cautious. In fact, the best solution when marginal effects decrease is not to play, or to play less and lose less. However, this does not conform to the viewpoint of many people who believe that everything has a cycle. Although Meme's cycle is a long cycle that is not afraid of bull and bear, there will also be a decay period. When this period occurs, it is important to reduce investment and observe and learn more. Recently, I heard the opinion of @ 0xcryptowizard on how to make money in the "second stage". The wizard's opinion is very direct. One stage tests one's ability too much. If you don't have enough confidence, don't spend too much money on a game. Instead, use your better "observation" to find a target that has a possibility of two stages after a correction. This is "making money with high certainty". Even in the PVP market, making money with high certainty is very important. But isn't the incident involving the Argentine president highly certain this time? This is not clearly a high certainty, it is certain that it was issued by the president. It was confirmed that Moonshot was included (in fact, no one knows the new rules), and the pool has a bottom line of 200 million US dollars. It is definitely a high certainty. I have seen many friends say that it is not too much, just one tenth of Trump's is enough. However, the result was still cut because the players in the game had already anticipated everyone's prediction. This part of the content can be seen in the tweet "Libra Accurately Harvests IQ 150 (180)" written by @ bitfool1 silly brother, so there is no solution at this time. The players are too familiar with the thinking of P friends, and it is precisely because of the diminishing marginal effect that they dare not bet on whether everyone has a better pattern, but choose to "stop at the right time". So if everyone starts running at $4, will the players lose everything? Theoretically, yes, but the reason why they dare to do so is because of information asymmetry. Players can have an expectation of a maximum drawdown, and once it exceeds the threshold, they will withdraw from the pool, similar to a stop loss. However, investors cannot see more comprehensive data, so this game with the players is inherently unfair. In fact, there is no absolute fairness. Another assumption, which I just thought of, is that if Libra itself is not ready to harvest so early, but sees that investors' enthusiasm is too high and the funds in the pool have exceeded expectations, they do not have enough ability to pull the market, or have already reached the expected psychological income ahead of schedule, is it possible? I don't know. So what should be the optimal solution when marginal effects decrease? For me personally, it means reducing investment and waiting for better opportunities. But what about others? This tweet is sponsored by @ ApeXProtocolCN | Dex With Apex