2026-01-10 05:32:05

Have you ever wondered why some people make a fortune in the market while most are still exploring? The secret lies in different ways of thinking.

The logic of ordinary people is simple — I have what I currently possess, so I use these to do some things. If I can earn, I earn; if not, I wait for the next time. Going with the flow and relying on luck. But those who truly understand the game do the opposite: first clarify what result they want, then work backwards to determine what needs to be done, and finally assess what they currently have. This is goal-oriented thinking.

In terms of probability, 99% of people are caught in the "cause-and-effect cycle" — taking action every day, waiting for results daily, relying on luck. Meanwhile, that 1% practices "reverse problem solving" — working backwards from the goal to the process. One is passive response, the other is proactive design. It’s obvious which approach is more likely to win.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DoomCanister

· 01-10 06:02

That's right, but 99% of people simply can't follow through; just thinking about it is enough to finish the job. --- Reverse thinking is correct, but the problem is that most people don't even know what they want. --- This theory sounds great, but in practice? It still relies on trial and error. --- Goal-oriented? I'm just puzzled—if the target isn't set accurately, how can you reverse engineer? That's the real bottleneck. --- Alright, another argument about a thinking gap, but most people who make money are just benefiting from information asymmetry and luck. --- Reverse engineering is fine, but the key is that both execution ability and capital are lacking; just thinking about it is useless. --- That's what they say, but I've seen many of the top 1% also hit setbacks; no matter how strong their mindset, they can't resist black swan events.

View OriginalReply0

FlatTax

· 01-10 05:46

I agree, but I think the key is still execution. No matter how good your ideas are, if you can't implement them, it's all pointless. — Talking about theory on paper, I've heard it too many times. Those who really make money do so quietly and don't bother discussing reverse problem-solving with you. — This is a typical survivor bias, right? People who make money will definitely say they have a plan. What about those who lose? — Being goal-oriented is good, but the problem is, how do you ensure the goal is truly realistic? It's still about trial and error step by step. — 99% depends on luck, 1% on planning. So, can I still change my plan now? Haha. — Every time I see this kind of analysis, I want to ask: where did that 1% early capital come from? — The reverse logic isn't wrong, but in the crypto circle, how small the luck component really is, is hard to say. — It sounds simple, but actually implementing it is a whole different story.

View OriginalReply0

MEVSandwichVictim

· 01-10 05:39

Oops, this set of logic sounds good, but why am I still spinning in that 99%? It's nice to call it reverse engineering, but honestly, you need capital to do it. Without capital, how can you reverse engineer? That's reasonable, but I think most people don't lack the desire to solve problems backwards; they just don't have the money to tinker. End-goal-oriented thinking, right? Okay, then I'll set a goal to earn ten times more first, and then... it's still about luck. Honestly, I've heard a lot about this kind of thinking difference, but how do you manage the risks? Curious. It's another survivor bias story. What about the 1% failures? Got it, but the market is so big, and more and more people are sharing the pie. No matter how clear the end goal is, it can't hold up. This set of strategies works for people with capital, but for those of us without money, it feels a bit like chicken soup. Having a clear goal is right, but who manages the execution costs? That's the question. Reverse engineering sounds advanced, but in reality, it's still about betting on probabilities. No one can escape that.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainUndercover

· 01-10 05:36

The reality is, most people don't even have a goal; they just think about bottom-fishing and getting in early. It's no wonder they can't win. That's true, but the real obstacle is execution, not ideas. You've heard the concept of reverse thinking countless times, but the key still depends on who actually takes consistent action. They talk about probability every day, but 99% of people actually can't distinguish between goals and desires. End-point orientation sounds sophisticated, but it's just about first achieving small goals; don't try to want everything at once. There's nothing wrong with this theory, but in reality, the amount of capital is the decisive factor. No matter how brilliant your thinking is, you need capital. I agree, but I also see quite a few of the 1% losing money; mainly, it's about catching the right trend, right?

View OriginalReply0