In the article on the 5th, I shared "No Need to Struggle with Hundredfold Coins."

The reason I believe there is no need to struggle with hundredfold coins mainly lies in my current understanding of investment; obtaining hundredfold returns from investments is extremely difficult.

This difficulty is manifested in the methods. The methods I am aware of can be categorized into two types:

The first type mainly relies on qualitative analysis, occasionally mixed with some quantitative analysis. A lot of the evidence and logic used in this analytical approach is "difficult to disprove," so it carries a high degree of uncertainty.

The second type mainly relies on quantitative analysis, supplemented by some qualitative analysis. This method can derive a relatively certain answer from a large amount of historical data, business models, and the simplest logical reasoning.

It should be noted here: my understanding of investment is not purely mathematical analysis, but includes a significant portion of "art." However, this does not mean that investment does not require logic or data. Thus, when I say it mainly relies on quantitative analysis, I don't mean it solely depends on mathematical logic, but rather refers to the comprehensive integration of various data along with profit models, moats, cash flows, and other quantifiable relationships that are perceptible and have been validated through practice.

Next, I will share my understanding of how investors can achieve hundredfold returns using the two methods mentioned above through three articles.

When we talk about obtaining a hundredfold return from an asset, there must be a time limit; otherwise, this return has no meaning. Therefore, the hundredfold return I discuss here refers to an investment period of 20 to 40 years, which is an investment duration that an investor can practice within their lifetime.

Obtaining a hundredfold return from an asset can be broadly categorized into three types based on the nature of the investment:

The first type is assets that have no (or only minimal) utility value and do not generate cash flow;

The second type is assets that have utility value but do not generate cash flow;

The third type is assets that generate cash flow.

Gold, Bitcoin, artworks, collectibles, etc., belong to the first category.

Various commodities (such as copper, aluminum, silver, grain, oil, natural gas, etc.) belong to the second category.

Stocks, bonds, and certain crypto assets belong to the third category.

Let's first look at the first category.

For this category, the asset we are most familiar with is Bitcoin.

When talking about the value and price of Bitcoin, people always provide a multitude of factors that could influence its price and value: for example, war, inflation, financial crises, fiat currency devaluation, credit bankruptcies, …

Are these factors correct?

Upon reviewing history, I think they can be correct sometimes, but not necessarily all the time.

In the early days, people regarded Bitcoin as "digital gold." At that time, its trend closely resembled that of gold, and in terms of inflation resistance and real-risk mitigation, it outperformed gold in a more aggressive manner.

So, at that time, I strongly agreed that Bitcoin was "digital gold."

However, later, especially in recent years, Bitcoin's trend has increasingly diverged from gold, more closely resembling the movement of U.S. stocks, and its performance has increasingly looked more like a risk asset than a safe haven.

In response, people have started to find a multitude of reasons to explain this change, such as large capital inflows, changes in Bitcoin's liquidity, and so on.

I will not comment on whether these explanations make sense regarding this change, but the very existence of such explanations and changes indicates a problem:

The factors that explain Bitcoin's intrinsic value and price trends are essentially "unfalsifiable." In other words, we cannot indisputably dismiss these reasons, but we also cannot provide conclusive evidence to support them.

If we delve deeper, the more profound reason lies in the fact that none of these factors or reasons have direct support from data or historical case studies, such as:

How does war affect the price changes of Bitcoin?

How does inflation affect the price changes of Bitcoin?

…

Are there any historical data and cases that have repeatedly verified the impact of these factors?

Without certain data and cases to support our ultimate judgment that Bitcoin will rise "a hundredfold," what basis do we have?

Thus, when we use this method to assess Bitcoin's value and price, we occasionally encounter various unexpected situations or highly emotional scenarios.

What does "highly emotional" mean?

For example, I firmly believe that the price of Bitcoin a decade from now will be far higher than it is today, and I am convinced that Bitcoin will reach one million dollars during my lifetime.

This belief comes from a certain dedication or preference in my convictions, as well as from an intuition I have accumulated, of course, also from the various reasons mentioned above.

But if you ask me why one million dollars and not two million dollars, or one million dollars, or even one hundred million dollars?

Or conversely, can you tell me how much Bitcoin cannot possibly reach?

Then I would have no answer.

This is the inherent issue with this method—in the absence of strong data and case support, and primarily relying on qualitative analysis, it becomes very difficult to have clear boundaries and standards for estimating Bitcoin's value, making it hard to have a universally recognized measure.

It strongly relies on the personal preferences and intuition of the investor.

I believe Bitcoin can reach one million dollars during my lifetime. But many people do not believe this; they provide a plethora of counterarguments. For their objections, I cannot refute them directly with logic and data, so in the end, we can only hold our own opinions and leave time to judge.

The difficulties and uncertainties caused by this lack of data and logical support are what many investors strive to avoid.

For example, Buffett and Munger have explicitly stated that they do not invest in gold and Bitcoin—assets that neither have utility value nor generate cash flow.

I didn’t understand this before, but now I can, because they cannot derive from data, business models, and a series of logical frameworks why Bitcoin can rise to XXX dollars.

From another perspective, I think this is also why we see that those who can make a hundredfold return on Bitcoin are outliers:

Either they are various odd characters (for example, those who had fortuitous outcomes from years of imprisonment, found lost hard drives, remembered forgotten keys),

Or they are individuals with extremely strong faith,

Or they are those who have never expected to make money from this endeavor resulting in never selling,

…

Because these people gaining a hundredfold return from Bitcoin is not based on a robust set of logic and persuasive data, but instead relies on those "unfalsifiable" factors beyond logic and data.

Can the vast majority of ordinary people achieve this?

Not possible.

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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。