在加密领域,要赚多少钱才能改变人生?

深潮Pubblicato 2025-09-01Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-09-02

真正的「赢」,在于知道何时该停下来。

撰文:2Lambroz

编译:Saoirse,Foresight News

前几天有个朋友问我:「你觉得 20 万美元能改变人生吗?」

对有些人来说,答案是肯定的;但对另一些人来说,根本算不上。正是这种认知差距,让我们大多数人陷入迷茫 —— 因为我们从未明确,「改变人生的钱」或是「财务自由钱」,对自己究竟意味着什么。

下面我要讲一个故事:关于我朋友意外获得的一笔收益,还有一位扑克玩家因目标清晰、自律克制,主动弃掉「口袋 A」(扑克中极强的起手牌)的经历。

一开始我没太当回事,随口说:「20 万美元确实是笔不错的钱,但算不上能改变人生。」

朋友立刻打断我,说:「你这是被加密货币圈子影响得太不切实际了。」

他说得没错。在加密货币圈子里,人们谈论百万美元的盈亏时,就像在说零花钱一样轻松。这种环境会扭曲你的认知,让你觉得「不到七位数的钱,都不值一提」。

但跳出这个圈子就会发现:20 万美元能帮人还清债务、偿还部分房贷,或是为某人争取到好几年的「喘息空间」(无需为生计焦虑的时间)。这样的钱,确实能改变人生。

想明白这件事,关键要回答三个问题:

  • 你「需要」多少钱?—— 能覆盖实际生活开支、债务,以及应急储备金的金额。

  • 你「想要」多少钱?—— 能用于提升生活品质、购买舒适好物,或是「不用再为账单发愁」的金额。

  • 你「实际能赚」多少钱?—— 结合你的工作收入、储蓄率,以及在加密货币领域真正具备的优势来判断。

对一位年薪 8 万美元的教师来说,一次性获得 20 万美元收益,绝对是天大的事;

对一位年薪 20 万美元的银行从业者来说,这笔钱很棒,但不足以彻底改变生活状态;

而对一位年薪七位数的人来说,20 万美元可能只是又一笔普通交易的盈利而已。

「改变人生的钱」从不是一个绝对数字,它始终与你的生活基准线和个人认知相关。

关于「足够」的心理学

这里有个认知陷阱:人的欲望会不断升级。

当你赚到 20 万美元,心里的目标会突然变成 50 万美元;当你赚到 50 万美元,又会觉得 200 万美元才够。加密货币让你无限放大了这种心态,因为收益可能来得极其猛烈:你早上醒来时还觉得「人生被改变了」,到了晚上就可能回归原点。

这就像玩扑克:有时候弃掉「口袋 A」(一手好牌)看起来很荒唐,但执意追求下一轮更大的收益,反而会让你满盘皆输。

真正的风险不在于「亏损」,而在于「永远不知道自己已经赢了」。

用「范围」思考,而非「绝对数值」

与其把「改变人生的钱」看作非黑即白的二元概念,不如将其视为一个有梯度的范围:

  1. 改善生活级:能带来小确幸、提升日常舒适度的钱。

  2. 改变人生级:能重置生活基准、彻底改善处境的钱。

  3. 财务自由级:能让人完全自主掌控人生、无需妥协的钱。

你真正想达到哪个层级?又有能力达到哪个层级?如果不提前明确,你就会一直陷入别人的游戏规则里,盲目追逐。

时间与金钱的权衡

换个更清醒的视角:不要只盯着「金额」,更要关注这笔钱能「买到多少时间」。

  • 现在的 20 万美元,可能为你争取到 3-5 年的「缓冲期」(无需为生计奔波、可自由规划的时间);

  • 但你也可能选择冒险,想把这 20 万变成 200 万,最终却可能一无所有。

在加密货币领域,「一夜暴富」的案例屡见不鲜,但真正的关键在于:把这种短暂的收益,转化为可持续的生活保障。用「赢得多少自由时间」来衡量成功,而非「账户里有多少数字」,才能让你保持清醒和踏实。

扑克带来的启示

有一段扑克比赛视频,让我对这个道理有了切身体会。

David Fishman 本是一名教师,却参加了一场高额扑克赛。他拿到了「口袋 A」—— 扑克中最强的起手牌之一,但在翻牌前,他却选择了弃牌(视频19:00 处可看到这一幕)。

所有人都觉得他疯了,直到翻牌后,大家才发现另一位玩家的牌是「四张 6」(能轻松击败「口袋 A」的牌型)。如果 Fishman 当时选择跟牌,一定会输得很惨。表面上看,弃掉「口袋 A」很荒唐,但这个决定却帮他保住了之前的收益。

他为什么会弃牌?因为他早就明确了自己的「目标金额」。当时他的收益已经是自己年薪的 3 倍,对他来说,这笔钱就是「改变人生的钱」。他不想为了「证明自己会玩扑克」,就冒险失去这笔能彻底改善生活的钱。他很清楚自己想要什么:拿到这笔收益,回家和家人团聚,把钱稳稳落袋。

这种「目标清晰」的认知,就是他最大的优势。

结语

加密货币领域就像一场持续的扑克游戏:每个人都想继续「玩下一局」,期待更大的收益。但真正的「赢」,在于知道何时该停下来 —— 这个「停止」未必是永久的,但你必须有明确的策略。

改善生活、改变人生、财务自由 —— 先想清楚你要追逐的是哪一层,再确定自己的「目标金额」。

如果连你自己都不明确,市场就会替你做决定,而这样的结果,往往不会太友好。

Letture associate

Retail Investors' 'Lead Brother' Serenity vs. Newly Minted Stock God Leopold: How Are the Two Top Hunters Mining AI's 'Physical Limits'?

The article profiles two prominent figures, Serenity and Leopold Aschenbrenner, who are gaining attention for their unconventional investment strategies focused on the physical constraints of the AI boom, moving beyond mainstream software narratives. Serenity, an anonymous online trader, advocates a "shiso leaf" theory. He targets small-cap companies with monopolies on critical, overlooked components in the AI hardware supply chain, such as specific semiconductor materials. His deep, technical analysis of bottlenecks in areas like co-packaged optics (CPO) has reportedly yielded massive returns, though his anonymity and focus on illiquid micro-cap stocks pose significant risks for followers. Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI researcher, founded a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. His macro thesis argues that physical infrastructure—power grids, land, data centers—is the true bottleneck for AI growth, lagging far behind chip production. Consequently, his fund employs an infrastructure arbitrage strategy: heavily investing in storage and compute infrastructure companies while placing massive bearish bets (put options) against major semiconductor stocks, betting their valuations will correct as physical constraints become apparent. While their methods differ—Serenity drills into microscopic supply chain details, while Leopold takes a macroscopic, infrastructure-focused view—both share a core belief: the real power and investment alpha in the AI era lie in controlling scarce physical resources, not just software. The article concludes by noting the inherent risks in both approaches, such as liquidity issues for micro-caps and timing risks for macro bets, but suggests they signal a broader market re-evaluation of AI's foundational assets.

marsbit5 h fa

Retail Investors' 'Lead Brother' Serenity vs. Newly Minted Stock God Leopold: How Are the Two Top Hunters Mining AI's 'Physical Limits'?

marsbit5 h fa

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

In the Agents era of blockchain, traditional value capture theories face challenges. The "Fat Protocol" theory, dominant since 2016, suggested protocols capture most value as their tokens are essential for network use. However, the proliferation of interchangeable L1s, L2s, and modular layers has eroded protocol scarcity and pricing power. Conversely, the "Fat App" theory posits that applications capturing user relationships (like wallets and exchanges) become the primary value layer by controlling distribution and transaction flows. This aligns with the current "Great Repricing" cycle. Agents disrupt this logic. As software users, they lack brand loyalty, prioritize cost and efficiency, and switch between platforms seamlessly. This undermines the front-end UX moats that "Fat Apps" rely on. The article explores several potential futures: 1. **Headless Applications:** Current leading apps could strip their front-ends and become backend API infrastructure for Agents, preserving their role. 2. **Protocol Resurgence:** If integration becomes trivial, Agents might bypass aggregators and interact directly with protocols, reviving "Fat Protocol" dynamics. 3. **Pricing Power Collapse:** Agents' rational, frictionless routing could commoditize the entire stack, compressing margins toward cost and leaving little profit for intermediaries. 4. **Unprecedented Activity:** Agents may enable new, high-frequency, machine-to-machine economic activities, expanding the total value pie even if margins are thin. 5. **A New, Unnamed Model:** Historically, major tech shifts (like the internet's attention economy) create unforeseen business models. The Agents era may spawn entirely new ways to capture value. The most likely outcome is a coexistence where "Fat Apps" continue to serve human users valuing UX, while a separate, Agent-driven economy emerges governed by different rules—where loyalty is based on factors like liquidity, latency, and settlement guarantees rather than brand.

marsbit6 h fa

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

marsbit6 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片