From the perspectives of assets, funds, and time, the three teachers had a wonderful discussion. The screenshot below perfectly combines their viewpoints. The viewpoint here is very similar to that of @ Guilin_Chen_ Guilin. Both @ lanhubiji and @ TingHu888 T are very reasonable. In fact, they are looking at it from different perspectives: the former is from the perspective of assets, while the latter is from the perspective of funds. What is the perspective of assets? The core is to consider the fundamentals of the underlying asset (stock or coin)? What is the growth potential (including the development status and growth rate of its business and ecosystem)? Can we ensure sustained growth in the dimensions of three, five, or even ten years, and maintain a leading ecological position in the industry? We still need to track dynamically here: 1) In the past one or two years, there may be changes in the next three to five years (from high-speed growth stalling to steady development); 2) Or it may not work in the past one or two years, but it will work again after one or two years because its core capabilities are still strategically correct and the pace is appropriate (reversal of difficulties). What is the perspective of funds? What is the nature of the funds and how long is the cycle? For individual investors, will this investment fund be used for emergency purposes in the future, or will it be unused in the short term (within six months or a year), or will it not affect their lives even if they lose? So it determines our mentality, pace, and perspective on asset targets. Just like in institutions, when you look at hedge funds (such as Castle, Millennium, etc.) and ultra long only (such as Baillie Gifford) institutions, their decision-making cycles, action rhythms, and perspectives are completely different: hedge funds have to report their performance to investors every month, and if their performance fails for six consecutive months or a year, they may face significant withdrawals from investors; Long term or ultra long term funds do not have to constantly face this problem, so they can be more long-term and able to withstand fluctuations (provided they have accurate asset judgments). This extends to the third dimension: the dimension of time. This is from the perspective of investment and trading behavior itself. In my opinion, the perspective of funds discussed above is more about external constraints. Here, the time dimension is more about personal choices, that is, what is our preferred rhythm? Some people are obsessed with short-term trading, some like trends and trends, and some like to hold for the long term. In the "Professional Speculation Guide" https://(x.com)/qinbank/status/1834494079314559202? The book s=46&t=k6rimWSEbo2D2TXolYcM-A examines different investment and trading behaviors based on time cycles: traders, speculators, and investors. Indeed, the cycles they observe are different, and they are all chosen by individual investors based on their own characteristics, financial nature, and other factors. There is no right or wrong or positive or negative feedback, and I believe that the most important thing is to have a rhythm that suits oneself. However, the requirements and abilities required for investing or trading in different time dimensions are actually different.