Treating Nasdaq as an "index of the US stock market" can easily lead people into a naive nationalist narrative: buying the Nasdaq is like betting on the United States, if the US economy is good, it will rise, and if the US encounters problems, it will be over. But just by looking at the composition of the ingredients, this narrative is broken. Pinduoduo in Chinese Mainland, Shopify in Canada, Kaspi in Kazakhstan and TSMC in Taiwan, China all of these companies are listed in the United States. More than half of the revenue of "American domestic companies" such as Google and Apple comes from overseas. They serve global consumers and are essentially global companies. I often give an example: the Shanghai Stock Exchange is located in Shanghai. Are the constituent stocks of the Shanghai Composite Index called "Shanghai stocks"? Of course not. That's just because our country's securities trading is most developed in Shanghai, and the Shanghai Stock Exchange actually belongs to all people in China. The same principle applies: the reason why US stocks are in the United States is simply because the country has the most developed financial system. It is not a 'US stock', but a 'global stock' belonging to the whole world. Understanding this point makes many debates meaningless. What you bought was never a story from a certain country. I don't understand it as a 'technology stock' either What is technology? Is there no technology in screw manufacturing? Does an AI company necessarily have technology? Taking a step back, even with technology, why should we be superior? I have seriously considered this issue. When most people talk about "technology stocks", they are not actually referring to the technology itself, but to the trend - buying AI when AI is hot, buying metaverse when metaverse is hot, whichever concept is on the hot search, money will chase after it. Chasing the trend is a foolish behavior. So in my opinion, 'technology stocks' themselves are a pseudo concept: they neither clearly define what technology is, nor secretly encourage the worst reasons to buy. What exactly is Nasdaq? My definition is: a collection of the world's best digital economy companies. Both keywords are worth stopping to take a look. The first one is' the best in the world '. As mentioned above - it is not a club of American companies, but a gathering place for the world's strongest. The second one is the 'digital economy'. The essence of Nasdaq is not 'technology', it is the digital economy. The digital economy is the best business model ever created in human history. This judgment is not lyrical, it has numbers. Similarly, retail: the net interest rate of traditional stores is only a few percentage points - Wal Mart, the world's largest traditional retailer, has a net interest rate of 3.0%. And Pinduoduo's gross profit margin can reach nearly 60% (FY2025 financial report, 56.3%). Coca Cola, once one of the best consumer goods in history with a net profit margin of 22.6%, remains the ceiling of the traditional economy. But after the emergence of Apple, everything was different - Apple earned a net profit of about nine times its size with a net profit margin of 24% (net profit of $112 billion in the past 12 months). From profit margins to scale, and then to moats, the traditional economy is truly powerless in the face of the digital economy. The six most valuable companies in the US stock market today - NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta - are all digital companies. This is not a coincidence. This is the seating chart provided by the market after the differentiation of business models. Finally, brothers What does the combination of the world's most powerful company and the best business model mean? I dare not say the stock price. But in the long run, Nasdaq's profits are bound to rise. I deliberately separated these two things. I really can't say the stock price - in 2000, the Nasdaq 100 fell from 4816 points to 795 points, a drop of 83.5%, and it took 15 years to recover from its previous high. If someone promises you that they can see the stock price, stay away from them. But profit is another matter. The generation gap of business models is real: a species that is not limited by physical shelves, has marginal costs approaching zero, and serves global consumers, is structurally crushing a species that is constrained by location, inventory, and logistics. This kind of crushing is not reflected in the stock price of a certain quarter, but in the profit and loss statements year after year. So back to the first five words. Both labels of 'US tech stocks' are wrong. What is Nasdaq? It is a collection of the best companies in the world, most of which happen to be in the digital economy business; It happens to be listed in the United States, but it belongs to the whole world. After thinking about this, looking at my own QQQM, my mentality will be much more stable - what I hold is not the story of a country or a trend, but the best business model of this era itself.