Recently, the most heated business battle in traditional industries is undoubtedly the clash between Lao Luo and Xi Bei.

In the end, it all boils down to a simple question: why are "pre-made dishes" so common in the restaurant industry now? The answer is four words: replicability. A company can only achieve great success if it standardizes its operations while maintaining a quality level of 60, just like McDonald's.

Who would have thought that nine years ago, Sun Yuchen had already articulated this "60-point scalable entrepreneurial logic" very clearly. Shifting the focus from dining back to business and investment, you will find a series of "leap choices" he made back then: bottom-fishing in Bitcoin in 2012, going long on Tesla when it was being shorted, shifting from investment to entrepreneurship, and moving from apps to blockchain; the underlying methodology is quite similar.

By reviewing the content related to investment and entrepreneurship in Sun Yuchen's course "The Road to Financial Freedom Revolution," we can find the reasons why "the post-90s Sun Yuchen was able to amass a fortune of hundreds of billions." His framework and logic in the investment and entrepreneurship arena hold significant reference value for today's young people still engaged in these fields.

For ease of reading, Rhythm BlockBeats has organized the essence of the last part of this public course related to investment and entrepreneurship in a "from shallow to deep" manner, as the final piece following "Sun Yuchen's lecture nine years ago went viral on the internet: Why not buy a house, not buy a car, and not get married?" and "Why can't Chinese people get rich for more than three generations? Nine years ago, Sun Yuchen gave a brutal answer," drawing a complete conclusion.

Deer do not pass by at all times; you have to lie down and wait.

1. What should you invest in to get rich quickly?

Sun Yuchen: At this stage, investing itself is a huge topic, and many people will spend a lifetime learning how to invest.

I think there are many good targets right now. For example, stocks of some excellent internet companies, like Tencent, I believe that buying Tencent's stock currently carries no risk at all. Although I say not to consider buying a house as a strategy, I think if you have a lot of money, buying a house in Beijing or other first-tier cities like Shanghai is at least not a losing business. However, this is not what I recommend.

What I recommend the most is to invest in yourself, which I have made very clear before. The biggest problem for the vast majority of people is that they never realize they should live for themselves. I don't think this is selfish at all because if you can't even live for yourself, how can you live for your wife? So for most people, when you say we should invest in other things, like investing in a house in Beijing or Tencent's stock, you first overlook that you are the one who should be invested in the most.

Do you understand Beijing's housing prices better, or do you understand Tencent's stock prices? You are not Ma Huateng. But you absolutely know yourself best: what kind of person you are, which areas need improvement, and where you need breakthroughs in life and career. Especially for most post-90s and post-95s, time and money are very limited. Spending 20,000 to buy 100 shares of Tencent while tightening your belt is not as beneficial to your body as buying a few more eggs. I believe that apart from winning the lottery, there is no such thing as getting rich overnight in this world, so don't think about what to invest in, except for yourself.

From this perspective, Bitcoin is not entirely what everyone understands as "investment" for me; it is actually a form of personal belief, a vote for one's career. If anyone is currently working at Tencent and believes in the company, I certainly recommend you spend all your money to buy the options Tencent offers you because this is not just Tencent's stock; it is also your career. Therefore, I strongly encourage young people to join startups, obtain options from startups, and invest in those options. You must combine this investment with your own career because a person inherently has limited capital, and you must integrate everything with yourself. I believe this is the only way to truly achieve a concentrated advantage in resources and succeed.

2. How to grasp the timing of buying in? Reflect on your investment experiences with Tesla, Bitcoin, and Vipshop.

Sun Yuchen: Before discussing these three investments, let me share some macro background. Since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system led by the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, the global financial system has long decoupled from the gold standard, showing a long-term trend of mild inflation. Even within the dollar system, the dollar is over-issued every year; Japan and Europe have long had low or even negative interest rates. This means that putting money in the bank not only earns no interest but actually depreciates in value. The continuous printing of money and the weakening of currency purchasing power have led to the phenomenon that there is simply too much money in the world.

Returning to the three targets I invested in: Tesla, Bitcoin, and Vipshop. These three investments were made during my studies in the U.S. from 2011 to 2014, priced in dollars. By the way, even if you are in mainland China, you can invest in dollar-denominated assets: U.S. stocks and Bitcoin can be accessed through compliant channels. At that time, I invested in U.S. stocks as a non-U.S. tax resident, which exempted me from U.S. capital gains tax under relevant rules. Among the three, Vipshop is a Chinese concept stock, Tesla is a U.S. stock, and Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency priced in dollars.

For beginners in investing, the first lesson to remember is: price is very important. While the quality of the company and the people is certainly important, the buying price is even more crucial. Good targets are not scarce in the world; the key is at what price you enter. I won't elaborate on "how to judge a good company" in this section; instead, let's talk about "timing" using three examples of when to buy.

First, let's talk about Vipshop. I believe its best buying point was during its "bloody IPO" in mid-2012. How exaggerated was it? Early investors like Sequoia and DCM were suffering significant paper losses: the stock price was $6.5 per share, while the Series B price had already reached $10 per share. Many people would ask: with such a low price, is the company about to fail? The reasons are not mysterious, roughly threefold: first, the credibility crisis of Chinese concept stocks, leading Wall Street to generally look down on Chinese companies; second, the Chinese e-commerce sector was under pressure, with JD.com and Vancl also on a downward trend; third, Vipshop's Series C financing was not smooth, and it was not a case of "money in place before going public," but rather "having to go public because the financing didn't come through." With these three pressures combined, the price was naturally driven down. But this precisely gave retail investors in the secondary market an opportunity: the primary market would never allow students like me studying in the U.S. to buy in, but in the secondary market, we could.

Next, let's discuss Tesla. I believe the best buying point was from late 2012 to early 2013. At that time, there were also three "valleys," with logic similar to Vipshop: first, the overall downturn in the electric vehicle industry. Mercedes, BMW, and Toyota were all working on electric vehicles, but generally not succeeding; the mainstream market view was still that hybrid vehicles were the future, and electric vehicles were being shorted; second, Tesla had just gone public, and Wall Street's shorting power was strong. Many people viewed Musk as a "storyteller," believing the company had only concepts and no substance, thus heavily shorting it; third, the issue of charging infrastructure remained unresolved: where to build charging stations, how many to build, and whether they could support nationwide travel? These were all questions at the time. Because of this, for an excellent company and an outstanding founder, this misjudgment and uncertainty actually constituted a great buying opportunity. The essence of investing is to continuously validate your worldview with reality; if you firmly believed in hybrids and were bearish on Musk back then, the market would "teach you a lesson." Paying some tuition (provided your position is manageable) can teach you a lot.

Finally, let's talk about Bitcoin. Personally, I believe that early 2013, or even a bit earlier, was one of the last high-quality buying windows. Unlike companies, Bitcoin was a new thing at that time. The biggest opportunity with new things is: when you judge that its direction and core are correct, and most people have not yet understood it, you can lay out your position in advance. Therefore, from the three examples above, we can draw a simple conclusion: the best buying time is often when "good companies/good assets" have not yet been recognized by the majority. Of course, the counter-question also holds: since most people do not see it positively, does that mean it is not good? The key lies in discerning the reasons for the "lack of optimism": if it is a quantitative issue, such as funding, rhythm, temporary sentiment, or short-term indicators, most can be resolved; if there are qualitative core issues, such as business logic, technical routes, or long-term trends, that is another matter.

Taking Vipshop as an example, its proposed B2C flash sale model and inventory clearance logic can succeed; Tesla's pure electric route and integrated vehicle capabilities will be realized in the long run; Bitcoin's scarcity and decentralization characteristics have their place in the context of currency over-issuance and long-term inflation. The moment when good targets + misjudgment + good price/good timing all occur simultaneously is when I take action.

3. How to understand a company and its vision? Including how to understand fundamentals and financial data?

Sun Yuchen: I think this is very simple. The financial reports of publicly listed companies will clearly outline key points, and anyone can download annual and quarterly reports from the investor relations page on the company's official website. Vision often has a distance from the business the company is currently engaged in and the problems it aims to solve, so comprehensive judgment is required. What I am discussing today is also the result of comprehensive judgment; if you want to see the company's own statements, just go to the investor relations page to view the annual and quarterly reports. Annual reports are generally more carefully prepared and worth reading closely.

As for financial data, I personally believe that 99% of companies listed in the U.S. do not dare to falsify their data; the cost is too high, and the consequences are too severe, so financial data is generally reliable. The key is to see whether these numbers point to the real problems the company is trying to solve: is its money being used in the right solutions? This is very important.

Obtaining "original shares" or "options" is usually quite distant for ordinary investors. What the public can buy is basically only stocks in the secondary market. Don't dream of getting "original shares" or "options" from anyone. If someone is selling you such opportunities, it is likely a scam. No compliant company will issue large amounts of stock to the public before going public; this does not comply with the regulations of the China Securities Regulatory Commission or the U.S. SEC. If you encounter such situations, do not participate.

Is it possible to obtain options? Yes, but the premise is that you work at these companies. Original shares are generally only given to founders or a very small number of core early partners. For most people, a more realistic option is employee stock options: working at companies like Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance, or even companies like mine, and if you perform well and the time is right (usually after 2-3 years), you will have the opportunity to obtain them. Whether they are valuable depends on the company's future development.

Another idea to consider: every year, newly listed tech companies on NASDAQ, if their stock prices plummet due to unfavorable market conditions or short-term negative news, even falling below the costs of many venture capital Series C and D rounds, while their fundamentals have not deteriorated and the founders are still excellent, these "golden pits" are worth studying. When I bought Vipshop, it was based on this logic; Facebook went public at $38 and once dropped to $18, with many funds having costs above $18, which was an excellent entry window. However, such opportunities are not available every day; you have to wait like hunting; deer do not pass by at all times; you have to lie down and wait.

Let's talk about Bitcoin. Personally, I believe the trend at the price level of 6500 is not over yet. Even if it doesn't rise above the 5000–7000 range, it will likely fluctuate sideways for a long time and won't easily drop significantly. I think breaking 10,000 is just a matter of time, and I am generally bullish on Bitcoin. In 2017, there was also the ETF application by the Winklevoss twins, which, if approved, would be a positive development. Of course, there will be significant fluctuations in between. Therefore, since you have bought Bitcoin, it already carries high leverage by itself, and I do not recommend adding more leverage, let alone trading futures. For those with limited capital, it is meaningless to have their hearts racing every day for this. Personally, I rarely engage in high-frequency trading: I once bought Bitcoin for over 100 RMB, sold it when it rose to 6000; later, when it dropped to around 1500, I started buying in batches at 1500, 1400, 1300… all the way down to over 900. I was surprised when my order at 950 that night was filled, thinking, "How can someone still sell it at such a low price?" Recently, when it rose to over 5000, I sold everything again—not because I was bearish, but because I had other plans. So if you want to buy at 6500 now, you can, but don't go heavy. Leave yourself room to buy more as it drops, lowering your cost. In the long run, it won't be easy to lose.

By the way, let's talk about Baidu. I have deep concerns about Baidu. It has long been shackled by the profit structure of search advertising, and its behavioral path cannot be changed; after Google exited China, it became even more "spoiled." It always loves to chase the short-term preferences of the capital market, such as jumping into the O2O craze with Baidu Takeout, but it lacks a unified strategic thought on the mobile side, and there is significant internal turmoil, giving me an overall impression of chaos. In this situation, I tend to view it as a target that can be shorted. It recently rose to 177, and I think it can be considered for shorting above 185; for those who want to be more aggressive, shorting around 177 is also possible. For me, shorting above 190 feels more solid, with a higher margin of safety. Of course, these are all my personal judgments and preferences.

Returning to Bitcoin, I currently do not recommend heavily entering at the price of 6500. The risk-reward ratio in the 6000–8000 range is generally average, and the safety margin is not high; it may incur short-term losses if it drops, but holding it long-term will likely yield profits.

Instead, I prefer opportunities with higher safety margins and more certainty. In short, any investment should have rhythm and position management; don't go all in at a halfway point. Also, be wary of the shocks brought by "mass irrationality": during my buying process at 1500, which fell all the way to 900, my mindset was quite torturous; so don't start with too heavy a position, leave yourself some room to scale in, buying more as it drops, gradually averaging down your cost, and become a patient long-term investor.

The Internet is the last channel for upward mobility

4. When did you realize you wanted to pursue entrepreneurship? Did you sleep well the night you confirmed you had made over 10 million?

Sun Yuchen: This was quite a dramatic moment in my life. Strictly speaking, I had already made 10 million by the end of October 2013, but I was completely unaware of it. I was in seclusion preparing for the LSAT (Law School Admission Test). The LSAT is held every February, June, October, and December, and I was focused on the one on December 15.

So, I had already been a millionaire for about half a month, but I was completely oblivious, still worrying about making two or three dollars a day. I was just preparing for the LSAT exam, and it was only after the exam that night that I opened my computer to check the Bitcoin price and was stunned: before my seclusion, it was about 500 RMB, but the screen showed 6000 RMB. My first reaction was that the computer was malfunctioning, and after confirming with several Bitcoin friends, I was sure the price had really risen to 6000. That moment was truly exhilarating.

First, I think there are two points: one is like writing down the prediction "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" and then actually witnessing it happen. That feeling is akin to a physicist deriving the orbit of a planet with a formula and then finding it in the sky. Just like how Neptune was discovered based on the anomalous orbit of Uranus, calculated using the law of universal gravitation. My feeling was similar, a joy akin to a "scientific discovery." Secondly, at that time, we humorously referred to ourselves as "believers of the Bitcoin religion," having a strong emotional and faith-based reliance on Bitcoin. Seeing it being "recognized" by reality at that moment truly brought me to tears of joy.

So, of course, I didn't sleep that night, and this directly influenced the trajectory of my life because I had always wanted to go to law school and become an ordinary lawyer, which was a personal life goal of mine. However, after this experience, I completely shifted towards entrepreneurship and have continued on this path to this day. In fact, I started my entrepreneurial journey in 2012, but at that time, I didn't consider it a lifelong career. As a result, this successful investment led me onto a completely different trajectory, which I believe changed my life.

5. Is it still possible to enter the internet industry now?

Sun Yuchen: This is like that famous question: when is the best time to plant a tree? The first best time was ten years ago, and the second best time is now. Since 1995, people have been asking the same question every few years; the last best time was ten years ago, and the second best is always now. This still holds true today. When Ma Huateng and Jack Ma were just getting into the internet, many companies like Sohu and Sina were already listed on NASDAQ, yet they still managed to rise later.

The reshuffling speed in the internet industry is very fast, which is a great advantage for young entrepreneurs. Basically, there is a reshuffle every five years. It's like playing Texas Hold'em: if you have a bad starting hand, it’s okay; just wait for the next hand; come back in five years for another round. Every five years, there is a round of re-ranking in the industry, and sometimes new hotspots emerge even before five years are up. As long as you stay at the table, you will eventually get a good hand. Wang Xing is the best example.

In 2003, Wang Xing returned to China from the U.S. and founded "Xiaonei," which ended in failure and was eventually sold at a low price to Chen Yizhou. In 2007, he created "Fanfou," but it also did not succeed; at that time, Fanfou crossed regulatory lines and was "pulled offline," leaving it in a slump; otherwise, today it might not be Sina Weibo that is popular, but Fanfou. In 2010, after several failures, Wang Xing tried again and founded Meituan, and this time he finally succeeded, creating a company valued at over 10 billion dollars. You see, Wang Xing has been an entrepreneur since 2003, 2007, and 2010, seizing opportunities every three to four years, which is basically the logic.

In traditional industries, it is much harder to turn things around. First, traditional industries rarely undergo reshuffling; whoever gets a good hand at the beginning often continues to win. Look at many industries in the U.S., such as oil and steel, where the early players like Carnegie and Rockefeller, once they establish a leading advantage, are backed by heavy asset investments. Unless there is a once-in-a-century energy revolution, it is difficult to shake them. The financial industry is similar; once brands like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are established, even if you go out on your own, it is hard to compete with the giants.

The internet is different. Even if a startup fails, "serial entrepreneurs" are actually more favored by venture capitalists. The internet changes rapidly: the most popular companies in the first ten years were Sina, Netease, and Sohu; now they have been replaced by Alibaba and Tencent. Just two years ago, Baidu could still be called BAT, but now, in just two or three years, people are already talking about "AT," and to some extent, B has faded out. Back when Sina and Sohu were at their peak, many of the "founding fathers" of later rising companies hadn't even entered the industry yet. Therefore, I believe there are opportunities to enter the internet industry at any time.

Another advantage of the internet is its rapid explosion. Even without external examples, just look at our "Accompany Me." The company has been running for over a year, almost two years, and my personal entrepreneurial journey has only been five years, yet "Accompany Me's" valuation, revenue, and net profit have already surpassed many companies in the dining and traditional industries that have been operating for ten or twenty years. From a time efficiency perspective, it is very cost-effective; in terms of human efficiency, it is even stronger. Our team of over 30 people can achieve the equivalent scale of three to four hundred, or even over a thousand, people in traditional industries. One employee can match the productivity of ten or even twenty of theirs. So, it is indeed very appealing to be in the internet sector.

6. When you first started your entrepreneurial journey, facing numerous obstacles, what did investors say to you?

Sun Yuchen: This was also quite an interesting point in my life. In January 2014, shortly after I returned to China, I met with several investors to discuss my project before the Spring Festival. One well-known fund partner, basically not waiting for me to finish explaining my idea, directly said to me: "Yuchen, stop worrying your parents. Update your resume; there are still six months until the new batch of overseas students returns to find jobs, and you can still be considered a fresh graduate. The fresh graduate status is very important; it might help you settle in Beijing. Don't mess around; don't lose your fresh graduate status and settlement opportunity, or you might end up without a job. Don't think about entrepreneurship for now; focus on finding a job."

Looking back now, he was likely coming from a good place; he probably thought my abilities were average and that I couldn't support myself. From a timing perspective, there were indeed only six months left until the job-seeking window, and I didn't have any impressive internship experience to show. But at that time, I felt seriously underestimated, and I reacted strongly.

I replied to him: "Even though I haven't worked before starting my business, neither did Zuckerberg or Bill Gates; they succeeded with their first projects. Why must one have work experience to start a business?" He asked me, "Do you think you are Zuckerberg or Bill Gates?" The conversation ended on an unhappy note. Looking back now, it still comes down to the same thing: to stick to your original intention.

7. What was the most challenging stage during your entrepreneurial journey?

Sun Yuchen: I think the very early stage is not difficult. When I first started my business in 2012, I didn't understand many things, not even how to register a company or file taxes in the U.S. But everything was new, and although it was hard work, I was learning new things every day, so I didn't need to "force" myself with "passion." The real challenge comes two years later when the novelty completely wears off, for example, around 2014 or 2015, when entrepreneurship has become your daily routine and a part of your life. At this point, whether you can treat it as a long-distance run and are willing to keep running this long-distance race, I think that is what is truly difficult.

Around 2014, I attended several classes at Lakeview University, and from that time, I made a very important decision in my heart: to live my life as an entrepreneur and to position myself as a "professional entrepreneur." Entrepreneurship may fail; the "Accompany Me" app may not succeed, and the company may even go bankrupt. But most likely, I will take a break and then start the next project, no longer living another kind of life. For me personally, this is a form of spiritual liberation.

Since my freshman year, I have always had a strong identity crisis: I didn't know who I was, what my life's value was, or what direction I should take. This spiritual confusion and strategic void brought me far more pain and detours than simply "not working hard enough." Looking back, at 26, I was probably in the happiest phase of my life so far, not because I made money or achieved what society calls success, but because I resolved the most fundamental identity anxiety: I know what kind of person I am and what I am willing to fight for my entire life, finding a clear coordinate for my positioning and strategy. For me, that is the core of happiness.

8. Traditional industries have relatively stable environments, sufficient known data, and assembly line production models, allowing people to make relatively accurate trend predictions for the future of the industry and create five or even ten-year industry reports. However, in the internet age, there are too many uncertainties: product uncertainty, user uncertainty, and trend uncertainty. How should we find a set of methods that adapt to "uncertainty"?

Sun Yuchen: The first point is something almost everyone is familiar with: MVP. Here, MVP does not refer to "Most Valuable Player" in basketball, but rather "Minimum Viable Product." In the internet industry, where the external environment and user behavior are highly uncertain, we must let "data and reality" tell us where the product should go. I remember Zhang Xiaolong once said: "Products are not designed; they evolve." In other words, even he himself could not predict what WeChat would look like two or three years later at the beginning; everything must revolve around user experience, usage scenarios, and data feedback, continuously iterating and evolving.

As a result, the product should be as restrained as possible in its initial investment: first create the version with the lowest cost and the most streamlined functions that can be genuinely used, collect feedback with it, validate assumptions, and then evolve based on user experience. This is precisely where many traditional enterprises struggle when "going online." Many of my friends at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business have encountered this: once they decide to transform into the internet, they want to design a comprehensive website or app that considers all functions for the next five to ten years at once, and then have the product manager complete it in one go. However, in the internet world, this is almost impossible. The correct approach is "small steps, quick iterations," refining one small feature at a time and then building layer by layer.

As I am also a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, I can see similar issues in government projects. When working on livelihood projects, they often hope for "one-stop solutions," allowing the public to enjoy a complete "internet experience" all at once, such as various "livelihood cards" and "benefit platforms."

However, internet products are never one-stop solutions; even whether these projects are viable must be judged based on real user feedback after they go live. The traditional logic of "project initiation—approval—one-time completion" leads to enormous waste: either the project is eliminated by a technological route right after it is launched, or it cannot continuously iterate based on reality and user changes, ultimately becoming a "half-finished project." The "pilot—validation—iteration" mechanism that truly aligns with the internet worldview often does not fit within government processes, making it difficult to implement good methods.

This methodology can be summarized as: MVP + rapid iteration. Mainstream internet products update ten to twenty versions a year, averaging once every two weeks; the pace is evident. For example, in the "Accompany Me App" that I founded, we basically maintain a rhythm of one version every two weeks, allowing users to experience new versions that better align with their experiences and perceptions regularly. Even so, our pace may not be considered fast within the entire industry. In contrast, the update cycles for traditional engineering and consumer goods are often measured in "years" or "decades," with housing even measured in twenty, thirty, or fifty years. In the internet society, these long cycles are compressed into "annual iterations, monthly iterations, weekly iterations," and even "daily iterations."

Furthermore, it is evident that the app format will gradually be replaced by lighter forms. In the era of H5/mini-programs, where "what you see is what you get, and what you touch is what you use," even local updates are saved; once the server updates, users immediately access the latest version. Thus, the pace of micro-innovation and iteration is being compressed to a "second-based" granularity. In this "second-based iteration" era, who among us dares to say that everything we have can be done once and for all, never to change?

Take our university life as an example. I once shared with friends how I joined clubs in college. I remember that when we first entered clubs at Peking University, many friends only joined one or two clubs and ended their club careers in college. As for me, I preferred to sign up for twenty or thirty clubs, spend two weeks visiting each one, and then choose one or two that I liked to participate in long-term.

This is a method that utilizes the "principle of uncertainty," exploring first and using real experiences and data feedback to filter, rather than planning based on imagination beforehand. The same goes for the workplace: many people explore among multiple companies and positions in the early stages of their careers, only entering the fields they are better at after one or two years. This "trial and error—learning—iteration" path may be a better solution to achieving financial freedom in this era. Even in traditional industries, this would represent a significant conceptual breakthrough.

9. You keep saying the internet is good; what exactly is better about the internet compared to traditional industries? What are the core advantages of the internet industry?

Sun Yuchen: The internet not only creates a new world but also releases a large amount of suppressed demand from the old world. A typical example is that e-commerce has spurred the express delivery industry, driving an overall increase in social retail sales. Today, I will talk about the second benefit of the internet, which is favorable for business people: currently, it is relatively free from various regulations. The reason is simple: the internet is a new phenomenon. Although those in the industry know that it does not have any "mysterious" high-tech barriers, outsiders often perceive it as very profound, and the government's understanding of it is limited, leading to relatively less regulation. This is crucial for the healthy development of the industry.

For example, in the case of the "Accompany Me App" that I developed. The company has been operating for quite some time, and the environmental protection bureau has not come knocking, and the industry and commerce department rarely visits. Departments like anti-corruption, family planning, and health have not caused any trouble either. Aside from paying taxes according to the law and making social security contributions for employees, we have almost no interaction with other government departments. This is a significant benefit for those starting their first internet venture.

Why do I say this? I have attended executive classes at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business and found that the regulations in traditional industries are generally very strict. For example, in mining (like copper mining): in the eyes of some local governments, you are a "fat sheep," and they would love to send a working group to your company. Energy conservation and emission reduction, environmental protection come; safety production, quality inspection, and safety supervision come; and tax issues are even more complicated, with a whole string of departments involved. In many places, compliance processes are not transparent, and whether you "pass" often becomes a matter of relationships and costs. Take the most common fire safety approval as an example: although there is no official requirement for "designated companies," if you do not follow the "default path," the process could be delayed for a month; whereas using a "designated company" could get it done in a week. For businesses, once the office space is rented, the faster the better. Such "time-consuming" bottlenecks are not uncommon in quality inspection, safety inspection, and energy conservation.

Some may say: after all, miners are a minority. Let's consider a more common scenario: opening a bathhouse in a big city. Entrepreneurs think "selling hot water" is simple: just set up a bathhouse, heat the water, and provide the service. But once they open, industry and commerce, tax, water, and electricity departments need to be communicated with, environmental protection needs to check the chimney, urban management needs to inspect the facade, health and disease control needs to check hygiene, and fire safety will identify fire hazards… departments come one after another, many of which "require your cooperation at all times." In the end, looking back, not many substantial issues are actually found, but whether you can open, how long you can operate, and when you can open are often in the hands of others, leading to the emergence of "gray costs" from "everywhere needing to be greased."

Whether it's "big entrepreneurship" or "small business," in many traditional industries, administrative regulations significantly raise costs. From an economic perspective, this artificially increases your unit costs. Originally, providing a bathing service might start at 100,000; with various pre-approvals and compliance costs piled on, it easily becomes 200,000. Ultimately, this will be passed on to consumers, but entrepreneurs will also be exhausted by these matters. In the early years, I also tried to save money by handling fire safety and processes myself, but it proved to be counterproductive. Now, I prefer to hire someone to handle it and focus my energy on more important matters. Not to mention that in the past, even registering a company was very troublesome, which led to the emergence of a large number of agency institutions.

Therefore, "streamlining administration and delegating power" is crucial for the business environment. The most fundamental rule of business is: the less regulation, the more vibrant the market; the more regulation, the more stagnant the market. It is also important to note that most of these regulations occur before you "enter the market." A large amount of compliance costs must be paid upfront, meaning that before you open and before you have any income, you must first pay various "entrance fees." To put it somewhat inappropriately: the mafia at least waits until you make money to collect "protection fees"; whereas some upfront compliance costs require you to pay as soon as you "want to make money," even if future profits and losses are uncertain. This is not based on profit income tax but rather a variety of upfront expenditures that artificially raise the threshold for entrepreneurship.

10. How to earn your first 1 million? How to choose a promising industry track?

Sun Yuchen: I believe that earning 1 million, 10 million, or even the "small goal of 1 billion" mentioned by Wang Jianlin, fundamentally depends on "strategy." If a person is truly eager to succeed and make money, execution is generally not a big problem; I assume diligence is already a B option, at least not much worse than others. Therefore, the key is still strategy, especially after entering the workforce for 3 to 5 years, one must think about "choosing an industry." What industry is more helpful to choose? Broadly speaking, I believe the internet industry should be prioritized; for non-internet industries, one must also think about how to integrate with the internet to improve efficiency and amplify output. Many examples today revolve around the internet, but "the internet" is not as simple as "going online"; it has a complete set of methodologies and industry standards. I have seen many traditional business owners in business school who understand the internet as "just making a website," which is a significant difference.

Let me first discuss the five military rules for "choosing an industry." These five rules apply not only to job selection but also to analyzing companies and choosing stocks; the essential judgment framework for investment and career selection is quite similar.

The first rule: choose emerging industries that have not yet experienced a "big explosion" but are close to one. This stage has the greatest industry dividends. For example, in recent years, platforms focused on live streaming and traffic have generally performed well because they have tapped into industry dividends. You might be in a leading company, and even if your performance is average, you can still make money as the industry rises. Pay attention to the timing: entering too early may lead to becoming a martyr (for example, many who ventured into artificial intelligence a few years ago became casualties because many fields have not yet fully commercialized); entering too late means missing out on the dividends.

The second rule: the industry should be able to "grow quickly and sustainably." My basic definition is: a compound annual growth rate of at least 20% and the ability to sustain growth for 10 years, preferably 15 to 20 years. Using this rule to filter the A-share market, most companies do not meet the standard, and many tracks have a ceiling in sight. When entering an industry, one should have a complete cycle of "entry—accumulation—harvest—exit," which should take at least 10 years; if it peaks in two or three years, it is meaningless. When Buffett chose Coca-Cola, it was because he judged that the carbonated beverage market had a sustained high growth "long runway." Compound interest may not seem impressive in the first few years, but with a long enough runway, the potential is very considerable.

The third rule: replication should be quick, and diffusion should be strong. After you break through at one point, can you quickly replicate it to more cities/people/scenarios? This is a typical characteristic of the internet industry. For example, Luo Min from Qufenqi, who works above me, was still small two years ago, but now it has become Qudian Group and is preparing for an IPO on the New York Stock Exchange. Its ability to scale is crucial: as long as the risk control model is successfully implemented in one school, it can quickly expand to more schools, making it replicable. Our "Accompany Me App" is similar; once the voice live streaming approach matured, nationwide expansion relied on "replicability." A counterexample is the restaurant industry, especially Chinese cuisine, which is difficult to standardize and replicate; Michelin three-star chefs are scarce in "people," not "processes." With a family background and twenty years of training for a head chef, how many restaurants can you open at most? McDonald's can replicate because it is based on "standardization" and "real estate models," not relying on master chefs. Similarly, in fields like healthcare, law, and investment banking, which rely heavily on "human" delivery, scaling expansion is naturally limited; you cannot hire 200,000 investment banking consultants like JD.com to handle all the IPOs in the world, as quality and compliance would collapse instantly. Therefore, many brokerage firms and investment banks do not have the exaggerated market values you might imagine. This is why traditional enterprises, even if they secure funding, replicate slowly; internet companies dare to raise billions because once the model is established, the replication speed is very fast. One must be wary of "pseudo-internet," which merely moves business online but has core processes that cannot be replicated or standardized, ultimately leading to failure.

The fourth rule: Demand must be obvious, preferably "essential" or a new demand that has yet to be discovered. Many companies tout VR/AR/AI concepts, but if they do not meet the criteria of "obvious demand/replicability," even if the track seems new, caution is warranted. Here are two examples of "essential needs": the high-paying users of the Accompany Me App have a simple core motivation: "boredom." In third, fourth, and fifth-tier cities, wealthy and idle post-90s individuals find alleviating boredom to be an essential need; Momo makes money by capturing this type of demand. Another example is early campus loans; banks were not involved, but college students had a strong need to borrow money to buy iPhones or bags, which could not be stopped, leading to news reports of "nude loans." "Essential needs" do not have to focus solely on basic necessities; those tracks are often oversaturated. One should understand human needs through the "seven deadly sins": pride corresponds to the need for social display among acquaintances, with platforms like Moments, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Snapchat satisfying this desire for exhibition; lust, within legal limits, has also nurtured a vast market… Understanding demand through human nature is more effective than fixating on categories.

The fifth rule: Match your abilities and accumulations. Just because the first four rules are valid does not mean it "belongs to you." Do you have 10,000 hours of experience in this industry? Does your team have the right genes? Many large companies fail because they "rush in at the sight of new opportunities," resulting in severe mismatches. If the first four rules are good but not suitable for you, then act as an investor rather than diving in personally. For ordinary people, such pure investment opportunities are also scarce because "emerging and explosive" good tracks often have not yet reached the secondary market.

Speaking of the secondary market, I like opportunities where "old trees sprout new buds": companies that have long been listed and quietly operating but encounter industry reshuffling or new demand/new technology trends, igniting their existing accumulations, and reshuffling the deck, allowing them to receive two A's. A star in 2016 was NVIDIA, the first stock in artificial intelligence: originally focused on GPUs, it was suppressed by Intel; with the arrival of the AI era, GPUs became the core of computing power, and demand from the B-side surged. It meets the first four rules: the track is new, growth is fast and long-lasting, it can be replicated globally, and demand is strong. Companies betting on AI do not care about the cost of chips, and they have "gene matching." This is a "heaven-sent opportunity."

Another example I recently analyzed and found promising is LC (LendingClub). Internet finance is still an emerging industry globally; from the credit data in the U.S., the scale is small but growing rapidly, with a 20% growth rate sustained for 10 years being quite feasible; the model is replicable, and it has "educated peers" globally; financial demand itself is an essential need. The only shortcoming lies in the fifth rule: the execution risk of management turnover. The company previously faced compliance issues, leading to the direct replacement of the founder/CEO/chairman by the board, causing the stock price to plummet to just over $3, with cash on hand nearly exceeding market value, later recovering to around $6. The broader industry environment, with interest rate hikes and short-term regulatory challenges, is unfavorable, but the structure of "old trees sprouting new buds" remains. Here, I am merely analyzing within the framework; this does not constitute a buy or sell recommendation.

Similar opportunities exist in some companies within 3D printing: they went public early and fell due to "pseudo-demand," but as technology/costs/scenarios align, the secondary market will provide a "value return" window. Capturing one could yield more than just a million.

Choosing companies, industries, and bosses can also use this framework. If a boss's judgment path aligns with what I mentioned above, joining their company means you won't be led to become cannon fodder. Buying stocks is secondary; first, use this method to select "industry + boss + position," because you are betting two to three years of your youth; stocks are just money lying dormant, but misplacing human capital in the wrong track has a much higher cost.

Finally, let me share two of my investment cases that fully meet these standards. At the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, I bought Tesla: it was in the "not much development but about to explode" new energy vehicle track, and there were countless predecessors who had failed in the industry; Tesla's entry point was spot on, first creating "low-cost sports cars," capturing the "acceleration" essential need in the sports car field, with electric cars accelerating even faster. The group in Silicon Valley, who did not want to drive "earthy" cars, loved trends, and were not that wealthy, were all captured. The track is "fast and long-lasting," with a 10-year run being quite feasible; in terms of replicability, Tesla's factory is highly automated, with almost no visible workers, operating 24/7, where capacity is a matter of engineering rather than human resources; demand is obvious, and marketing is strong; team matching is also key, as Elon Musk is skilled in government relations and marketing, and new energy relies on subsidies, road rights, and other policy resources; new concept companies especially value marketing capabilities, and Musk's previous experience with PayPal also validated his execution ability. So at that time, I bought shares in this company.

Many novices only understand linear functions; once it becomes dynamic and multi-variable, they cannot comprehend it, which is a typical mindset of the poor. If we were to graph wealth changes: the horizontal axis is time, and the vertical axis is wealth value. Novices usually think wealth will grow along a slowly rising straight line: to earn 1 million, one must climb up point by point, like 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000. But in reality, the true wealth curve resembles an upward-opening parabola. The initial growth rate may not even match that of a straight line: by the second or third year, the straight line could accumulate to 50,000 or 100,000, while the parabola is still below the straight line; however, in the later stages, the explosive power of the parabola will far exceed that of the straight line. Perhaps the straight line takes 50 years to accumulate 2 million, while the parabola can reach that level in the third, fourth, or fifth year.

Take a senior engineer from Alibaba as an example. Everyone knows this group may be quite wealthy, with many individuals having tens of millions. But if he worked at Jack Ma's company for 10 years and accumulated 10 million (let's say we are underestimating), did Jack Ma give him 1 million every year for 10 years? Obviously not. In 90% of cases, he earned a monthly salary of 10,000 to 20,000 at Alibaba, along with some stock options; after four years, his salary would just exceed 1 to 2 million. The key is that every year, stock options vest, and later he cashes out Alibaba stock to receive several million, adding up to this 10 million income.

The vast majority of truly profitable models are like this. But novices cannot understand; they only comprehend "straight lines." In their view, a person earning 10 million must rely on salary: a monthly income of 100,000, an annual income of 1.2 million, for ten consecutive years. They find it hard to accept the path difference of "salary not being high, relying on stock options for exponential growth."

For instance, I am currently starting a new project in blockchain and digital currency, named TRON in English, with the Chinese name yet to be finalized. The rules in this field are still being established; it is a new track where "rules have not yet formed." Some informed individuals have already inquired about it, even coming to my Weibo to ask. I believe these individuals are quite capable and may likely make money because they are well-informed. Unlike some people, who are oblivious, even when the flood is at their doorstep, they remain indifferent. The difference between people often lies in the flow and sensitivity of information.

Regarding this new project, I will introduce it in detail in the program later, explaining why we are engaged in Bitcoin, blockchain, and digital currency. The core reason is that this is a new field, the rules are forming, and integration is urgently needed, with high growth potential. By the way, we are currently in need of computer-related talents, and we also welcome students strong in mathematics and algorithms. Even if you do not work in technology, as long as you can handle customer service, marketing, PR, or promotion, we welcome you. If you want to join our company, you can leave a message on my Weibo "Sun Yuchen" or comment below this program, and our colleagues will contact you.

Blockchain can also be considered part of the financial sector. If I had to choose between "finance" and "blockchain," or going to a well-established, seemingly prestigious Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs, I would definitely choose the former. Because in such large companies, it takes at least twenty to thirty years to rise from an ordinary analyst to MD (Managing Director), and that’s assuming a smooth journey. But if I spend those twenty to thirty years deeply involved in virtual currency, no matter how I navigate, I could become the CEO of a decent company; the earnings at that point would often far exceed those of an MD, and the sense of achievement in the industry would be much stronger. This is the advantage and dividend of "setting the rules." If you wait until the rules are all set before entering, we often joke that you won't even get "hot food." Therefore, it is often best to work in fields where rules have yet to be established.

11. But now that social classes are so rigid, how should we strive?

Sun Yuchen: During China's transitional period, internet startups are the last upward channel. I have mentioned this many times in the program, but many people still do not believe it. There is a saying in the Bible: God shows the truth to people, but they do not see it. Many who complain about class rigidity indeed overlook the fact that the internet serves as an important opportunity for national development and provides an upward channel for most people, but they often miss these opportunities. From my personal experience, as long as you join an internet startup and stick with it for a year, you can become a semi-senior veteran; after two years, you become a senior veteran, and after three years, you can basically become the most senior employee aside from the boss, of course, provided the company does not go bankrupt. In other industries, such treatment is almost impossible.

If you become a civil servant, you are just starting out after three years, at most getting familiar with office processes; other state-owned enterprises and traditional industries are similar. Let me give an example of a classmate that you can relate to. He studied undergraduate with me at Peking University and later went to one of the top five schools in the world for his master's degree (I won't name them, but you can guess: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford). After graduation, he joined one of the big four banks in China. After three years, he basically figured out the ropes, but during those three years, forget about salary increases or promotions; don’t even think about it. It’s very much like entering a government office, first enduring "five hundred disciplinary sticks." In the first year, he was assigned to the most remote and underdeveloped branch as a teller, under the pretext of "understanding the grassroots." To put it bluntly, if you really want to train, half a month is enough; at worst, a month, but it certainly does not take a year. In the second year, he returned to a big city, continued as a teller, and might have had some exposure to so-called "senior business" in the office, but that’s just work that can be learned in three months. In the third year, if he performed particularly well, he might go to an overseas branch, still doing the most basic work. In short, the first three years are just the starting price; you cannot expect too much.

You must understand that this is already the best promotion track; it is not a situation of being unable to survive but rather "being reused." Just like if you come to the Accompany Me App, I might have you sweep the entrance for three years, and that would still be called "reuse." You need to understand the banking system in this way. The banking industry is certainly good, but in terms of promotion channels, it is far inferior to the internet. This also explains why certain banks frequently expose "hidden rules" and sexual harassment: the upward space is too narrow, and power is highly concentrated, leading many to take gray paths to get promoted quickly.

On our side, we do not need that. In my fifth year of entrepreneurship, I have not engaged in any hidden rules; it’s very simple: the company only looks at performance. Strong individuals can be placed on the front line or even lead a team within two months; those who are just coasting will be let go in two months. We want results, not "disciplinary sticks." Because of this, it is difficult for internet companies to breed sexual harassment and "hidden rules," which often arise in scenarios of unequal power: a director's word can determine an actor's fate, and in large banks, a leader's decision is final. Startups are different; if you have the ability, you can break through the ceiling on the spot; but if you are a "Mr. Nan Guo," you simply cannot survive here, as the boss will see through you immediately. Conversely, truly capable individuals in such companies will quickly be recognized and reused; there is no "three-year starting price." In internet companies, you can make a significant impact within three months and be remembered by everyone.

Why can you become a veteran after three years in an internet company? The reason is simple: the average lifespan of a startup in China is only 2.7 years. If you work for one year, 50% of the companies will fail; if you work for another year, half of the remaining will fail again; in the third year, another half will be eliminated, leaving very few that survive. If you can stay in a startup for three years, it indicates that you have good judgment and have chosen a team that has exceeded the average lifespan. Our current project has been running for 2.5 years (I have been in entrepreneurship for 5 years), and the business situation is decent; it looks like we can last another two years, which should allow us to exceed the average lifespan.

Secondly, after three years, you will inevitably be a veteran. The company has only been alive for three years; if you have been there from the beginning to the end, if you are not a veteran, who is? Moreover, startups have high personnel turnover. From our own experience, initially, there were many people coming in to "practice," and some were quickly identified and let go; it might take firing three or four to keep one truly capable person. Some also felt "incompatible" and left voluntarily. The turnover rate was indeed high in the first two years, but it gradually stabilized in the second and third years. By this time, those who remain are basically the backbone.

Thirdly, three years is usually the beginning of the company's harvest period. Many teams cannot survive the first two years; if they are still around in the third year, it indicates that they have found their position and direction in the market and are starting to grow steadily. If they survive into the fourth and fifth years, they often enter the fast lane. Companies that last ten years usually have a very clear advantage in their niche. Take Alibaba, for example; it has only been 18 years. This curve is very similar to the mortality rate in medicine: in China, the mortality rate for children aged 0-4 is about 1.2‰, but after age 4, it drops to about 0.2‰ for ages 5-9, and continues to drop to about 0.1‰ for ages 10-14. The risks in the early stages are six times greater than those later on. Companies are the same: they are most vulnerable when newly born, with the lowest immunity, and aside from crying, they cannot do anything. When we first started our company, it was truly a history of blood and tears: to hire people, we first needed to find someone who could hire; we didn't even know who to ask to change the water in the water cooler; there was no administration, and we had to do everything ourselves. At the same time, whether your idea can be validated by the market and attract enough users and partners is also being tested. Sorting out these key issues often takes until the third year, which is why the "high mortality rate" of startups is concentrated in the first three years.

12. In traditional thinking, entrepreneurship often means opening a store and turning it into a century-old establishment, consistently adhering to a stable business philosophy and principles. However, in your generation of post-90s, like you mentioned, you believe in the power of "constant tinkering" and "long-term persistence," treating "continuous tinkering" as a creed for the next decade. I also see you moving from one company to another, jumping from one industry to another. My question is: in your view, which path is more important: continuously refining a startup into a "century-old enterprise" or constantly experimenting and tinkering across different industries? How do you weigh these two choices? Which one do you resonate with more?

Sun Yuchen: I really want to answer this because it's a great question. Jack Ma once shared a case in class at Hupan University that left a deep impression on me: he went to Japan and found that many companies there have been around for over a hundred years, but they are all quite small. He and Masayoshi Son entered a shop, and after buying something, they chatted with the shop owner and learned that this shop had been passed down for the fourth or fifth generation, with a storefront of less than 10 square meters, very tiny, and a sign outside saying "This store has been in business for 120 years." I remember this very clearly.

I think this reflects the differences in the "genes" of different countries and ethnicities. Japan and Germany, in particular, tend to have many "small but long-lasting" century-old shops because they place a high value on craftsmanship and are willing to perfect something over the long term. I do not evaluate whether this is good or bad, but it is their cultural orientation.

To use a fun analogy: why is McDonald's successful? Because it makes hamburgers "difficult enough to eat," or more accurately, stabilizes them at a score of 60. If we consider a bad hamburger as 0 points and an extremely good one as 100 points, there are many people in the world who can make hamburgers scoring 85 or even 100. The Japanese and Germans pursue a "10,000-point" hamburger, one that makes your soul leave your body with just one bite, and even a Michelin three-star rating wouldn't be enough to describe it. But the problem is that such skills are particularly difficult to learn and pass down, requiring high standards for chefs, ingredients, and cooking times, often passed down through generations, making mass production extremely difficult. They might only produce a few servings a year, and only a few people in the world can taste them, making it hard to build a large business. Even if a hamburger sells for 100,000 yuan, the annual revenue would only be 500,000.

McDonald's can succeed because it can "standardize at 60 points," with almost no barriers to entry for people and no strict requirements for materials. Ingredients can be sourced locally all over the world, and in China, they can use local ingredients to make it. For someone like me, Sun Yuchen, I could be trained at McDonald's for a week and be ready to work; there are no special requirements for materials, ingredients, cooking times, or locations, and anyone can follow the process to make the same hamburger. McDonald's follows this path: making the process replicable so that people all over the world can quickly produce a 60-point hamburger, allowing it to dominate globally.

This also corresponds to the advantages of China and the U.S.: we excel at making things "usable, accessible, and replicable," allowing consumers to enjoy qualified products at a lower cost. For example, if a button is given to a Japanese or German manufacturer, the quality is extremely high, but the price is also high; if a Chinese manufacturer makes it, the standard is "good enough," allowing the price to be significantly lowered, which is of course good for consumers. In contrast, Germany and Japan are better at making things "extreme and long-lasting." Two paths, two "genes," each have their roles in global division of labor.

As for my choice, I prefer to make things bigger, to create products that everyone can use, rather than pursuing the best products in the world.

13. What advice would you give to young entrepreneurs now?

Sun Yuchen: Startups are often willing to pay you the highest premium. Just like Cai Chongxin, who also taught us at Hupan University; he is very amiable and good at telling cold jokes, and we often laughed a lot during his classes.

He was a lawyer at a top law firm in the U.S., earning a high salary of over a hundred thousand dollars, but he was just a "senior employee." After joining Alibaba, he quickly became the second-in-command after Jack Ma. For this, he indeed gave up the opportunity to be a well-known lawyer in the U.S.; at that time, his first month's salary at Alibaba was only 500 yuan. But eventually, when Alibaba went public, Cai Chongxin, along with Jack Ma and his wife, established a foundation, donating hundreds of millions of dollars, and his personal wealth return was around four to five billion dollars.

So, if you are good enough, it is worth joining a startup. You are already a "big Buddha," and a small temple will certainly try its best to support you; once it succeeds, the excess returns you receive are often unattainable in established fields.

Speaking of this, I have two pieces of advice: first, as a job seeker, try to join a company that is in the "rule-making period"; second, as an entrepreneur, try to choose a track where "rules are still forming," so that small companies have the opportunity to "fish in troubled waters." I often lament: I was really born a few years too late. If I had been born in 1985, my net worth might already be 10 billion dollars, haha. Don't laugh; this isn't necessarily a joke. If I had started my entrepreneurial journey five years earlier, I would have coincided with the wave of mobile internet in 2009, and perhaps I would have achieved even more.

In reality, I started my entrepreneurial journey in 2012. By the standards of my post-90s peers, it wasn't late, but by then, it was already the tail end of the mobile internet boom. If I had entered three years earlier, riding the wave, with what I consider my cleverness, my achievements might have been even higher. This is also the core reason I repeatedly emphasize in the program that "entrepreneurship should be done early." Success and failure are certainly related to ability, but the decisive factor is often whether you catch the right timing. Therefore, I advise everyone to "stay in the game and keep trying," as your good opportunity will eventually come.

Some people who have used my Accompany Me App might say: "Yuchen, yours might be quite inferior to Momo; why didn't you achieve what Momo did?" An important reason is that when I started my entrepreneurial journey, the landscape of mobile internet in China was basically stable. Momo initially utilized the new capability of "geolocation" on mobile devices, riding the wave of "APP supply scarcity" to accumulate a massive user base at a very low cost. In 2009, when the mobile internet was just starting, it was almost like "planting a seed in the ground and it would thrive"; anything you did could become popular; whereas today's entrepreneurs often "chase the wind," and if they miss the right moment, they can only wait for the next wave.

Therefore, the best direction for company development is towards fields in the "rule-making period," where there is room for fishing in troubled waters; if you honestly work in the "established rules" of the industry chain, the upward space is often very limited.

My second point: the true wealth ascent channel is "non-linear." The middle-class path we are familiar with is predetermined: hard work → high scores → good university → good job, which is linear. However, the real leap in wealth is exponential, disruptive, and accompanied by rule reconstruction. No one in the world has ever become a millionaire just by receiving a salary day after day, year after year.

There are often "novices" who ask very "linear" questions: "If my monthly salary is 5,000, my annual salary is 60,000, doesn't that mean I have to work for 100 years to earn 6 million?" This is a typical linear mindset. If you rely on saving your salary, of course, it will take 100 years; but the path of wealth ascent is not linear; it is exponential and discontinuous.

What does this mean? Taking the Accompany Me App as an example. When we first started, we were losing one to two million a month, almost losing our shirts. But when we seized an opportunity and got the key points right, we could immediately earn four to five million in a month. Some might ask: how long did it take to go from losing one million a month to earning four to five million? Did it take a long time, like ten years? The answer is simple: two weeks. It really only took two weeks to turn a profit.

This example illustrates that the rhythm of making money is not calculated as "daily earnings × 365 = annual earnings," multiplied by several years. Anyone with entrepreneurial or business experience understands: the early stages often involve losses; once the track, strategy, and timing are right, a dynamic reversal can happen quickly. Of course, you might enjoy a good period, but if the industry suddenly undergoes a major change, things can quickly go awry. Wealth is essentially a process of "dynamic oscillation and stepwise ascent," not a straight linear growth.

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。