医学生转行加密亲述:别让沉没成本,困住你的人生

深潮2025-08-31 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-09-01 tarihinde güncellendi

如果你今天卖掉你的持仓,明天还会买回来吗?

作者:Wajahat Mughal

编译:深潮TechFlow

“你浪费了所有的时间和精力。”

——2025 年 8 月,有人对我说。

这是我作为医学生第一周时拍下的第一批书的照片,但这些书我从未真正打开或阅读过。

来给大家讲个小故事。差不多十年前,我开始了医学院的学习。当时,我常常思考自己未来想做什么。图片中的这些书是我从图书馆借来的,第一周的案例从胚胎学和解剖学开始,那时的兴奋感是真实的。我会思考医学领域的广阔空间,想象自己作为医生的生活,以及毕业后需要做出的选择。

医学职业的魅力在于它的多样性:

  • 你可以像创伤外科医生一样亲自动手;

  • 专注于技术,比如放射诊断;

  • 以沟通为中心,例如家庭医学或精神病学;

  • 或者通过急诊或急性医学结合各种元素;

  • 还有几十种其他专业,每一种都有其独特的视角、特点以及优缺点。

当时,我最初想成为一名外科医生,觉得做眼科医生也很酷。但我很快意识到解剖学并不适合我,尽管我在动手操作方面表现不错,但我发现自己并不喜欢在手术室里花时间。后来,我想进入放射科,然后是全科医学(家庭医学),甚至短暂考虑过胃肠病学。重点是,我那时只看到了自己从事医学这一条路,完全没有考虑其他可能性。

在毕业后忙碌的外科轮班中捕捉到一场美丽的日落。

我从没想过自己会从事金融行业,更别说加密货币和去中心化金融(Crypto/DeFi)。但生活总是充满变化。我经历了新的体验,结识了新朋友,探索了新的爱好,转眼间,几乎十年过去,我站在了今天的起点。事实上,当我刚进入医学院时,我甚至对加密货币是什么毫无概念。回顾过去,从那时的我到现在的我,这段旅程令人惊叹。

几天前,在一个活动上,有人对我说:“你浪费了所有的时间和精力,离开了医学。”过去几年里,我听到过很多类似的说法,因为我逐渐减少了医学实践,转而投身于加密领域。我理解这些话有时是出于对安全和稳定的关切,但他们错了。用一个词来形容,那就是“人力资本”。所有的学习、经历、技能培养和记忆积累,都成为了今天的我。这些并没有消失!对我而言,这包括从沟通技巧到批判性思维、记忆能力,再到真正治疗急性或慢性患者的能力。这些能力依然是我的一部分。

沉没成本谬误

我想传递给大家的主要信息是:不要陷入沉没成本谬误。在医学领域,我经常看到这样的情况,也许你们中的一些人也曾遇到过。仅仅因为你在某件事情上投入了大量时间和精力,并不意味着你需要把它作为一生的事业。

沉没成本谬误是我们倾向于坚持某件事——无论是情感、财务、教育还是心理层面——即使有更好的机会摆在面前。举个例子:你投资了一个新推出的山寨币,当时它被认为是下一个爆款,你投了些资金进去。然而,几个月过去了,你发现它表现不佳,市场上的其他项目都在更好地发展,而团队对下一步产品更新的计划严重滞后。尽管如此,你仍然选择持有这些币。

为什么我们不直接卖掉,转向其他机会呢?

曾经是“套牢族”吗?你可能经历过这样的情况……

沉没成本谬误再次成为“赢家”,因为它让我们在决策时更多地考虑已经付出的成本,而不是未来的机会。我们过于专注于已经投入的资源,而忽略了其他选择(比如很多情况下,直接卖掉那枚替代币换成比特币才是更好的决定)。这种现象的背后是我们的非理性行为,我们常常受到情绪的过度影响。这种谬误还与承诺偏差和损失厌恶密切相关,这也是每个加密货币投资者或投资领域人士都可能经历过的。

我们能从中学到什么?

以我的经历为例。当 @0xBobdbldr 联系我,邀请我加入他并在 DeFi 领域做一些完全不同的事情时,我当时已经在加密领域兼职,但仍在从事医学实践。我站在了人生的十字路口:是否要全职进入加密领域?对我来说,DeFi 是一个千载难逢的机会,可以在早期阶段参与,创造影响力,并且重要的是,改变自己和他人的生活。这次选择是基于未来收益的考虑,同时避免了承诺偏差,这帮助我克服了内心的挣扎。

放下过去的事情是完全可以接受的。有些事情是不可逆的,可能涉及高昂的成本,但另一种选择的潜在收益可能远超你正在坚持的事物。正如上文提到的,这可以是一个工作、一场即将到来的活动,甚至是你已经做出的投资。

  • 接受并学习:你可能犯了错误,做出了糟糕的选择,或者只是有一个更光明的替代方案在等待着你。拥抱改变,放下不可逆的成本代价是一件极好的事情。

  • 尝试理性思考,而不仅仅是情绪化,尤其是在投资决策上。

  • 专注于未来的收益,无论是新的投资机会还是等待你的新职业,用数据和指标来支持你的决策。

我喜欢那些提出这样的问题的人:“如果你今天卖掉你的持仓,明天还会买回来吗?”我想在很多情况下,答案可能是否定的!

İlgili Okumalar

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 saat önce

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

marsbit5 saat önce

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 saat önce

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

marsbit6 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片