I saw a post online that reviewed and summarized various reflections on participating in the Pons token (see the reference link at the end of the article).

This post mainly criticizes a certain viewpoint:

Many people believe that in this round of Robinhood mania, if they want to participate in a token, they should directly participate in the leading Pons, which currently has the highest consensus.

The author then listed various incidents and coincidences that Pons experienced during its development, arguing that the so-called "leader" cannot be determined from the beginning, and even if determined, it may be overturned in the future; therefore, the notion of holding onto the "leader" from the start is not feasible.

Let's use this post to analyze what incidents and coincidences Pons actually experienced during its development.

The earliest launch platform on the Robinhood chain was NOXA. At that time, it was undoubtedly the leader.

However, NOXA soon encountered an incident and ceased operations. At this point, Pons appeared and successfully took over the traffic and attention from NOXA.

NOXA's "leader seat" changed hands, and Pons became the new leader.

However, the good times did not last long, as Uniswap launched its own launch platform pools.trade. Due to its unmatched fame and influence, Pons's traffic was quickly siphoned off by pools, causing it to fall from the "leader seat".

Interestingly, after a period of operation, pools did not manage to build the business. Meanwhile, the Pons team swiftly launched new mechanisms, increased buyback efforts, and measures for listing tokens, gradually regaining traffic and attention from pools, reclaiming the "leader seat" and maintaining it to this day.

According to normal reasoning, how should one participate so that it is reasonable and the risks are controllable?

First, it is indeed necessary to participate in the leading token.

Next, when problems arise with the leader, participants must be able to judge whether this leader can get through the difficulties and rise again. If yes, they should increase their position; if no, they should withdraw.

Now, let's use this normal reasoning to recap the previous process and see what the most likely operational path for a rational thinker would be, and whether it is possible for them to participate in Pons from the very beginning and achieve extremely substantial returns during this wave of market activity.

First, when NOXA appeared, they should participate in NOXA because it was then the unmistakable, unique leader.

Next, when NOXA encountered an incident, they would prudently assess the situation. Let's assume they had a 50% chance of determining that the NOXA team would fall into a slump and then withdrew, finding the next target—that is, Pons.

After participating in Pons, upon seeing Uniswap launch pools, following normal reasoning, they would also evaluate it because Uniswap's advantages over Pons were indeed too great.

In this situation, let's further assume they had a 50% chance of being convinced that Pons would overcome Uniswap and thus continued to hold onto Pons.

Next, as Pools began operations, players' sentiments began to ferment, with a general belief that Pons would fail, leading to Pons's price dropping close to 50%. At this point, let's assume they faced a substantial drop in price and still had a 50% chance of having strong confidence in Pons, believing that it could come back to life.

From then on, they held on until dawn, as next Pools operated poorly and Pons's intensified buyback measures took effect, bringing Pons back to its leading position.

This participant achieved a grand slam outcome.

If we multiply the three probabilities above, the result is 12.5%.

In other words, if a participant closely monitored the launching platform on the Robinhood chain from the beginning and caught onto the Pons token, successfully making all the "correct" decisions retrospectively during the subsequent incidents, their chances of winning would be 12.5%.

Just slightly more than 10%.

What does this probability mean?

In the most mainstream baccarat game in Macau, the player's chance of winning by betting on the banker is about 45.8%, and the chance of betting on the player is about 44.6%.

Therefore, for a rational thinker to make amazing profits from Pons, the probability is still much lower than betting on the banker in baccarat in Macau.

Returning to the development history of Pons.

When Uniswap launched pools, posing a risk of failure for Pons, I even think that the Pons team's introduction of increased buyback efforts and aggressive listing measures may not necessarily have been with the confidence that this move could bring them back to life, but rather, it might have been a case of hoping for the best amidst desperation.

This means that Pons becoming the current leader on the Robinhood chain is indeed largely a matter of opportunity (though I do not deny the team's capability).

To successfully seize Pons from the beginning and gain substantial profits, one would really have to be an extraordinarily talented person. An ordinary person actually requires a great deal of luck.

As I write this, I am reminded of a saying by Duan Yongping, which conveys that:

He does not buy into a target early. He waits until he clearly understands a target, especially when he sees that it can continue to make money in the long term, before making a significant investment.

If he cannot find such a target, or if the price is already too high when found, he would rather miss the opportunity than engage.

I believe this is the kind of reasoning that a normal person can follow and learn from.

In fact, for targets like Pons, even if one does not participate or misses out, just observing can also be quite good. In real life, where else is there such an exciting game in the crypto ecosystem?

Of course, those who participate purely with a gambling mentality can ignore my above sharing.

Reference link:

https://x.com/btckik/status/2095709905995100412?s=46

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。