An entrepreneur's most content-rich output often appears when they have just gained some popularity, but have not yet become a "bigwig," usually in those early years.

For example, Sun Yuchen's "Road to Financial Freedom Revolution." Looking back at his judgments and arguments from 9 years ago, which have been discussed and reviewed time and time again, many conclusions and trends have been partially validated by reality; more importantly, the methodology and decision-making framework behind it still hold reference value.

Among the most impressive and widely discussed topics is "Sun Yuchen's Three Nos Rule": not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married before the age of 30. Is he permanently negating homeownership, car ownership, and marriage, or are there other considerations? And recently, the rumors and public opinion about Sun Yuchen: why did he break up with his ex-girlfriend? Why did he only buy a garage for his dad who wanted a luxury car? Why does this billionaire, who is worth hundreds of billions, appear both extravagant and stingy? In these audio course materials from 9 years ago, you can actually find answers and explanations.

For ease of reading, BlockBeats made minimal refinements and structural rearrangement to Sun Yuchen's 2016 open course audio: trying to retain the original tone, following a "from shallow to deep" logic, the content of why Sun Yuchen chose "not to buy a house, not to buy a car, not to get married" has been reorganized and refined for everyone to review.

Q: Why are most young people hardworking but not wealthy? What are they lacking?

Sun Yuchen: The strategy of a company is very important, and an individual's strategy is also very important. So I am very opposed to the fact that many young people just haven't thought about anything, haven't developed a strategy, and directly rush into marriage, treating marriage as a strategy, having children as a strategy, buying a house as a strategy, treating parents as a strategy, treating wives as a strategy, never having considered their own life, never having treated themselves as a strategy.

The core reason why the vast majority of hardworking people are not wealthy is that they have not developed a strategy. Many people always feel like strategy is a big word, that only Jack Ma formulates strategies, what kind of strategy should I formulate? In fact, to the contrary, poor people should develop a strategy even more, as this is the only factor that determines success. I think first of all, don't rush into rolling up your sleeves and getting things done. First, think clearly about what your life is for. Why are you doing these things? What are the benefits? Does this matter align with your original intentions? Who are you? Where do you come from and where are you going? Clarify these fundamental questions first. If you haven't thought about these questions clearly, you will definitely not live a good life, which will of course lead to the problem of being hardworking but not wealthy. This is also a common saying in our entrepreneurship circle, that using tactical diligence to cover up strategic laziness, meaning that you feel busy every day, but in fact, you haven't accomplished anything.

The vast majority of people in China seem to have been programmed. After graduating from college, they feel compelled to follow the three-step process of buying a car, buying a house, and getting married, like those fake people in The Matrix with a controller plugged into the back of their heads, lacking any independent personality or free will because it's all been programmed. Most people don't reflect on why they should get married? Why buy a car? Why buy a house? They just start executing the program with their eyes closed, you know? I find this very terrifying.

Next, we will delve deeper into Sun Yuchen's thoughts from 9 years ago from the three dimensions of not buying a house, not getting married, and family relationships.

Why Not Buy a House?

Question: With the recent sharp rise in housing prices, are you buying or not?

Sun Yuchen: I think this issue is actually subjective. First of all, I don't hold a bearish view on the housing prices of first-tier cities; however, the housing prices in China's second and third-tier cities are indeed severely inflated. Outside of Beijing and Shanghai, I believe the bubble is very obvious, including Shenzhen. I think the future development of Shenzhen relies on further enhancement of the city itself. Even so, the price increases in Beijing and Shanghai are limited. If you say that prices have increased by more than ten times in the past decade, can they increase by the same multiple in the next decade? This is definitely impossible. If prices were to rise in this manner, they would be higher than on Mars, which is impossible.

Let's talk about affordability. For the vast majority of post-90s and post-95s, buying a house is fundamentally an "opportunity beyond their capacity to participate." In this world, there are many investment opportunities that you are unable to participate in. For example, there is an insurance company in Portugal that is about to be privatized, and by investing money, you can make a profit, but the entry barrier is 5 billion. Would you participate? You can't, right? Similarly, a house in Beijing or Shanghai starts at 5 million. For most post-95s, 5 million and 5 billion are no different — they can't afford either. So, this is not an opportunity for you, and there is no need to agonize over whether you can afford to buy, because it is simply not within your choice range. Even if you were to use your current cash flow as collateral, the bank may not dare to lend to you.

Unless we are talking about three generations supporting one house, with grandparents, paternal and maternal grandparents, and both parents all participating. But then you will encounter a problem: yes, it is very likely that you have seized this investment opportunity, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. When all the elders are involved, you and your partner's "small limited company" suddenly have 12 additional shareholders, and each one has veto power — because they have contributed to the company. So if you then complain that you bought this house, and why are your parents bothering you every day? What about your grandparents? That's nothing to complain about, right? Because this is a matter of course; they participated in the formation of your company. How could they not receive dividends or participate in decisions?

More realistically, the vast majority of young people actually lack the most basic investment knowledge, understanding of investment thresholds, so they will definitely buy at the highest and most easily trapped price because buying a house itself is a very complex matter. I think it would take 10 lectures to explain buying a house thoroughly; it's very complicated and not something you can just decide to do.

So for the vast majority of young people, if they buy a house, I think they are prematurely entering a risky area where they have no economic strength, no investment strength, and no discernment ability. They will ultimately pay a huge price for this decision, a really huge price, because even many people who buy a house are not actually investing. The vast majority of people buy a house to get married, and it will make their marriage become a place of no return, because at this point, they will find that they can't even proceed or leave easily, as this house binds them so tightly. Because this house ties two people, two large families together — both sets of parents, four elderly, plus the two of you, almost 14 people are all tied to the same asset. The complexity of this relationship, I think, is no less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Returning to the issue of price increases, even during the craziest recent price surge, Beijing's overall transaction price only increased by 10% to 15% on average, for example, from 45,000 to 55,000. It sounds like an increase, but from an investment perspective, there are many opportunities for young people to invest in fields with over 20% returns. Taking the mobile internet industry that I am familiar with as an example, companies like Weibo and Momo that everyone is familiar with have doubled in value in one year, and at certain stages, the increases are even more dramatic. In comparison, buying a house may be a choice for those who do not understand the Internet, but for most ordinary people, this choice is too harsh and unnecessary.

Let's talk about cars. If you have money and want to buy a luxury car to play around with, of course, you can. When I was a poor student before, I also fantasized about driving a Lamborghini. But you may be curious: I earned over ten million by the end of 2013, and now my net worth has exceeded 100 million, why haven't I bought a car all along? The real reason is very simple: I don't have time. I have been too busy after starting a business, learning to drive has been a struggle, and I only got my driver's license last year, and I am still at a beginner level. I don't even dare to reverse the car on my own.

At the same time, I think there is another reason, which is because of the unprecedented prosperity of the sharing economy, with apps like DiDi and Yidao, including Uber in the United States. For daily commuting in major cities, not having a car doesn't affect much. Driving in small cities, going to Hoh Xil, or the Pacific Coast Highway in the U.S.? I don't have that time, it's not something I need. In Beijing, the commuting experience with DiDi and Uber is already very good, so I have never bought a car at all.

And the experience is really better: no need to find parking, you can make phone calls, work, or write on the road. Everyone in Beijing understands the traffic situation, from Zhongguancun to Guomao, often takes one to two hours. If you drive yourself, all that time is spent at the steering wheel; if you take a taxi, I turn that time into output. So far, I have not seen the necessity of buying a car. Of course, if someone were to give me a car for free, I would still accept it.

Question: But as business people, don't we still need a decent car to show our presence?

Justin Sun: Do you have to drive a decent car to keep up appearances in business? I don't think so. Real business partners are very savvy and won't foot the bill for your "showy project." As long as your product, service, and personal professionalism have already established trust, there's no need to rely on a car to score points. I didn't buy a car for a long time in my early years, and that's the key.

Of course, there's also the license plate lottery issue in Beijing—even if you want to buy a car, you may not be able to. Even if you really want to buy, renting a license plate is not that difficult. However, considering the analysis above, I still think it's meaningless. Let me give you another example: during the peak of my car usage with Yidao, I deposited 80,000 yuan, and they gave me 100,000 yuan, equivalent to having 180,000 yuan in my ride-hailing account, and they also gave me two TVs and a bunch of vouchers. I used this account for almost 18 months, covering all my transportation needs. With a monthly consumption of three to four thousand, even after discounts, it was just over two thousand. It was enough for business occasions, an Audi A6 ride, or a day of charter service, and it didn't cost much.

Buying a car and maintaining it is a terrible choice. First, from an investment perspective, it's almost a disaster. Even for someone like me who owns a company and can deduct value-added tax by buying a car, theoretically making it cheaper than others, I still don't want to buy one because a car is a fixed asset that will depreciate, and in a few years, it will be worthless, not appreciating. I prefer doing things in the internet industry, which involve "light assets."

What's worse is that buying a car is like having a child—you have to take care of it every day. The car won't wash itself, won't refuel itself, won't find a parking space, won't get its annual inspection, and if it breaks down, it needs repair. You also have to "buy it a house"—a parking spot, and usually, you have to pay in full. Entrepreneurs around me generally face two major obstacles: dealing with children, slowing down their pace with various medical issues; and spinning around the car: today it's repairing the car, tomorrow it's charging it. Our entrepreneur friend born in the 1990s bought a Tesla, but it ran out of battery on the way to charge, so he had to call for roadside assistance. There are too many similar troubles, and I won't go into detail. If not buying a car, how will you get around? Nowadays, the sharing economy can basically solve transportation perfectly, at least in China, there are mature alternative solutions for "vehicle usage."

From the perspective of the sharing economy, it is one of the perfect solutions to replace fixed asset investments. Cars and houses have already given rise to giants like Didi and Airbnb; household services have 58 Daojia and Ayibang; second-hand circulation has Zhuanzhuan and Xianyu; knowledge services have platforms like Zhihu Live, and so on. Anything that used to require a large investment for "luxury goods" will be made more accessible through the sharing economy.

So, from where I stand, the reasons for buying a car are hard to justify.

Question: If you must buy a house in Beijing, which areas within Beijing city are worth investing in, any suggestions?

Justin Sun: I consider myself to have a bit of authority on this question. The overall strategy is very simple: find a "price anomaly" within Beijing. In my personal judgment, the truly undervalued area within Beijing city is mainly Tiantongyuan. If you search on platforms like Lianjia, you can still find properties in Tiantongyuan for just over 20,000 yuan per square meter. Against the backdrop of Beijing's overall average transaction price of over 50,000 yuan, this price is indeed rare and the cost-performance ratio is still acceptable.

Some fans mentioned that they found out that in Tiantongyuan, the price was over 40,000 yuan per square meter. That's because most likely what you saw was the type of apartment with a small area, low total price threshold, and high liquidity, or the batch with a better location or building age. In Tiantongyuan, larger-sized apartments, such as those over 200 square meters, often have a lower unit price. However, you need to rely on "digging." It's not possible for every apartment to be cheap, but the probability of finding a low-priced apartment in Tiantongyuan is definitely higher than in other areas. As for the question of "if I buy and end up losing money, is it my fault," investment always involves fluctuations. I have already drawn the circle to the relatively lowest part within Beijing. The rest depends on your own selection and execution.

For any investment, the key is still the price. Having a valuable target is not rare; the crucial point is at what price you buy in. Many people have attached too many attributes to the act of buying a house that should not be borne by "investment"—such as face, marriage compatibility, and comparison—which has disrupted their judgment. In the end, they end up ruining an investment that could have been successful.

This method can be applied to other cities as well: first, find areas in rotation that are undervalued, and focus on the "lowlands." The research I have done is: looking at Kangcheng in Shanghai; Tiantongyuan in Beijing; and nationally, Chongqing has very high overall cost performance. I am from Huizhou, and before Shenzhen's housing prices surged, the area near the Shenzhen border in Huizhou was a good follow-up location. Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Huizhou can also find entry points in low areas within the same city district.

Also, remember that houses are not like stocks. In stocks, the price per share of a company is the same at a given time; but house prices are highly differentiated: different districts within the same city, proximity to main roads, floor orientation, building age, new or old house, first-hand or second-hand, apartment size, total price range, school district affiliation, and even whether the homeowner is "urgently selling" will all create significant price differences. In addition, your financing conditions—down payment percentage, loan interest rate, term, and whether you can get a discount—will ultimately result in the "actual cost" in your hands, which requires a comprehensive assessment.

So, fundamentally, buying a house is more like a complex "comprehensive battle." It is not something that can be concluded by simply stating the average price of Beijing/Shanghai. Take Tiantongyuan as an example: the initial average opening price was three to four thousand, which was the level over ten years ago; even last year, some people bought at 13,000 in special circumstances. If you can still close deals at just over 20,000 now, looking back over a decade, it has only tripled or quadrupled; whereas in Beijing during the same period, some areas have seen a tenfold increase. Where does the difference come from? It's from the area, apartment type, timing, and price at which you bought back then. Making the right choice and holding steady is the essence of this business of buying a house.

Question: Why do you advocate for "Not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married before 30 years old"?

Justin Sun: I believe that, in a maximum of ten years—by 2027—living independently with the lifestyle of "Not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married before 30 years old" will become the mainstream for Chinese young people. Today, people still ask: Can you survive before the age of 30 without buying a house, a car, or getting married? Ten years later, there may be people questioning: You actually bought a house, bought a car, and got married before 30?

In order to prevent our generation of youth from being "stereotyped" before the age of 30, I want to conduct a public "control experiment." Using ourselves as the sample, I want to prove to all same-age individuals in China that it is possible to live well, or even better, by not getting married, not buying a car, not buying a house, and not having children before the age of 30. Just like a "large-sample double-blind trial" in biomedicine—where everyone has similar backgrounds, you walk your path, I walk mine, and we will see who is better off in ten years.

Of course, in today's China, the pressure of choosing not to buy a car, not to buy a house, not to get married, and not to have children before turning 30 is indeed significant. I have experienced it myself: one core reason for breaking up with my previous girlfriend was that I couldn't get married before the age of 30. Some might say, "If you're not getting married, what kind of love is that? Are you just fooling around?" If someone thinks this way, I can only express regret. I know that setting "not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married" as life goals before the age of 30 is not easy, really not easy. But I also believe that as long as we use our golden decade from 20 to 30 to enhance personal abilities, especially in the core competitiveness of the Internet age, when we look back in ten years, we will definitely not regret it.

Why Not Get Married?

Q: Why haven't you gotten married until now? You are already 27 years old.

Justin Sun: Indeed, I feel that as a man, I have less pressure, but it seems that in China, if you are 26 and not married yet, if you are a woman, this question will definitely be asked by everyone. This includes some of my ex-girlfriends who broke up with me for a significant reason because they couldn't see the possibility of getting married with me in the next 3 years, and most women wouldn't even wait for 3 years. If there is no progress in 6 months, they will break up.

I highly appreciate this European and American social environment where the life goal of everyone is not marriage but their own personal and career development. In this social form, everyone does not need to explain to society the reasons for their choice of marriage. It's a strange society where married people don't have to justify their motive for marriage, but unmarried people have to justify their motive for being unmarried, which is truly absurd. So, I hope this current situation in China can change in the next 10 to 20 years.

Returning to marriage itself, I personally believe that the essence of marriage is about forming a family. It's about choosing your family partner, and the way you choose a life partner is much more terrifying than how a company selects a partner because in a company, if you can't agree or things fall apart, you can still exit. But with a family partner, there is no exit mechanism. The day you exit signifies the collapse of the company, the breakdown of the family, and then all assets must be immediately settled, and each person gets half.

You can see that there are several issues here. First, it's all about complete equality; second, it's about the exit mechanism, which is essentially a destruction mechanism, right? So, in this case, I think finding a partner should be done with extreme caution. I even believe that two people should live together closely for at least 2 years before getting married, with one year being the minimum. Only then can you understand if you and this person get along, whether you can stay aligned when significant life problems arise.

Therefore, personally, when it comes to marriage, I don't see marriage as the goal in itself. Also, I feel that if Sun Yuchen never gets married throughout his life, it's actually not a big sin or an unfinished matter. However, I also hope to discover the true half I love and be with her. But in this matter, I will be very cautious.

Question: Why don't people born in the '90s need marriage? Why wasn't our society resistant to marriage in the past?

Sun Yuchen: First of all, you need to understand one thing: not everyone is suitable for marriage, and not everyone needs to get married. Marriage is essentially a "family partner" project, similar to entrepreneurship. It is not suitable for everyone; whether or not to find this partner depends on you, and it's okay not to find one—that's one aspect.

Secondly, marriage means giving up the freedom of both parties to form a partnership system. Therefore, it is normal for two people to have disputes in independent development and compromise each other's independence because one of the costs of marriage is sacrificing some independence. Can you accept it? If you can't accept it, you may end up in divorce, which has a high cost. In other words, "giving up freedom to form a partnership relationship" is not suitable for everyone and not suitable for any stage of life.

Third, the family unit of marriage often "amplifies" social risks. In theory, it is a mutual support, but in reality, there is often a risk transfer of "one person suffers, the whole family bears the consequences": one person gambles, and the whole family pays the price; one person is in debt, and the whole family is implicated; one person is seriously ill, and the whole family bears it. Risks that individuals can handle independently are magnified by the financial and emotional ties of the family, and the unit's ability to resist risks is insufficient, easily transmitted layer by layer, and hinders everyone's development.

Fourth, from the current practical experience, marriage may generally lead to a decrease in quality of life, which is also normal. There are only 24 hours in a day. If you invest a lot of time in the affairs of "partnering with a partner," you naturally cannot devote an equal amount of time to explore your personal life. Many interests and things you want to do require negotiation between the two people, inevitably diluting personal rhythm. In the past, being single was not "comfortable" enough; the cost of living alone was high, and the affairs were cumbersome. Now, technology and services are making single life more and more friendly, with more choices and higher efficiency. Once married, this part of free time will be relinquished.

Fifth, the "exit mechanism" of marriage is not perfect, and divorce often comes with significant financial and emotional costs. It is not a breakup as simple as "deleting a WeChat contact," but rather involves property, division of shared assets, and even child custody and visitation arrangements. The complexity and cost are often much higher than when not married. This is also a real-world risk that must be taken into account when considering marriage.

Sixth, and what I consider to be the most important point in the Chinese context: once on the path to marriage, it easily triggers strong intervention from parents, aunts, uncles, and even the entire network of acquaintances. Especially when your wedding is tied to a "traditional checklist" including buying a house, a car, dowry, gifts, and requires parental savings or endorsement from elders, you are easily drawn into the values and behavioral logic of the previous generation, becoming a "follower" of the older generation and letting the worldview of the elders guide your life choices.

In the Internet age, marriage is no longer the ultimate goal of human existence. For the vast majority of people, at least in traditional and industrial societies, marriage was once considered the most important mission in life. However, as we enter the Internet age, this trend is clearly changing. Many people may find it difficult to adapt at first, but I believe they will gradually learn: there is only one ultimate goal for a person—oneself. It is not a house, not a car, not marriage, not parents, but yourself.

Returning to the feudal and industrial societies, marriage/family as a fundamental unit of society did indeed serve many functions and divisions of labor. Firstly, establishing a family can significantly reduce the cost of living: cooking together, renting a house together or living in a purchased house, and even bringing parents to care for each other can dilute costs and time. In the past, without division of labor in the family, it was difficult for one person to work during the day, cook and do dishes at night, and take care of household chores. Secondly, the division of labor within the family—what we are familiar with as "men work outside, women work inside, men plow, women weave." In ancient times, women often could not support themselves independently, and mothers and children relied on male income, causing men to take on the responsibility of supporting women and raising children. Thirdly, families fulfill a social responsibility: taking care of the elderly, raising children, mainly relying on the family to bear these responsibilities. Fourthly, from a family perspective, blood relations and clans were the earliest forms of social organization, and procreation was considered the core of family and power continuity, with the eldest son inheriting the throne being a typical example. Fifthly, marriage/family has long been the most stable and default way for human reproduction.

However, in the Internet age, these functions are gradually weakening. Starting with the cost of living: the cost of living alone has decreased significantly because the previous extensive division of labor within the family has been replaced by a more specialized division through socialization and the internet. Taking cooking as an example, my mother always used to say, "Either learn to cook, or find a wife who can cook, otherwise you'll starve to death." Yet, I still don't know how to cook rice, but I haven't starved to death until now for a simple reason—there is O2O food delivery. Eating out every day was both expensive and time-consuming, but nowadays, food delivery is not only time-saving but also cost-effective, often more cost-effective than cooking yourself, and sometimes even more cost-effective than "marrying someone who can cook." House chores can also be outsourced: services like cleaning help and home service platforms such as "58 Daojia" match idle time and labor through the sharing economy, directly replacing the need for a housekeeper. Moreover, with washing machines, dishwashers, dry cleaners, and laundry services, mundane tasks have been simplified to the press of a button. Hence, most of the "reduced cost and time" brought about by marriage can be resolved through social services.

Let's take another look at the premise of "men providing for women." The Industrial Revolution and the Internet Revolution have brought society into the era of the knowledge economy, where the marginal value of physical strength has declined, and "male strength" is no longer the decisive productivity factor. Since the 20th century, gender equality has been continuously promoted, and women have gained equal opportunities and income in most fields compared to men, with many industries even surpassing men. Therefore, the old premise of "men must provide for women and children" is gradually breaking down. In the past, once divorced, women might have faced a survival crisis. Now, at least in cities and in most industries, women have achieved significant economic independence. Of course, the notion of "male superiority and female inferiority" or objectifying oneself as a tradable resource still exists. However, it is undeniable that, economically, the equality between women and men is continuously strengthening, and the necessity of the family as a "unidirectional provider unit" is naturally declining. Moreover, the social responsibility of the family to take on "elderly care and child-rearing" is diminishing. In the agricultural society, families had to bear this responsibility due to the lack of public services. However, entering the 21st century, most developed countries, including major cities in China, are gradually improving their social security and pension systems, and public and market-oriented services such as education, healthcare, and childcare are expanding. While the family remains important, it is no longer the only or necessary unit.

Question: Life in major Chinese cities is very difficult. Should people consider returning to their hometowns?

Justin Sun: I believe that life in major cities is not simple at all. However, the perception that "living in a big city is extremely difficult" is largely exaggerated. Why is it exaggerated? Because directors and media personnel are mostly concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Small cities lack mature entertainment industries, and almost no one is telling the stories of those places. What does the media like? "A dog biting a man is not news, but if a man bites a dog, that's news." Those who live well are not news-worthy, only those who live in misery have dramatic stories. Therefore, the theme of "struggling in Beijing" is repeatedly filmed and told to create an illusion that life in a major city is very difficult.

I'm not just saying this without experience. I have also experienced days of financial difficulty. Back then, in Beijing, I received a thousand yuan a month, which was funded by my father. It was indeed tight and tough, but not as exaggerated as one might imagine. At least three meals a day were manageable, and I still had dreams and hopes. The pressure was certainly high, stemming from the pressure of striving itself, but I don't think that it was so difficult that one couldn't survive. A major city is called a "major city" because the number of jobs and opportunities it creates daily far exceeds its increase in population. Companies like ours, "Wave Field TRON," sometimes face cash flow issues but still need young people; if the operation improves, even more people are needed. As long as a young person is capable, willing to learn, and has some understanding of the internet, they are likely to be needed in a major city and not find it so difficult to survive.

Conversely, looking back at one's hometown, especially in areas with a single industrial structure and lower levels of development, the real problems start there. Many places only have the primary and secondary industries, barely requiring young people's creativity and trial and error, with highly rigid management positions and low mobility. Even if they hire new people, it's often for purely physical and repetitive assembly line work, with low value perception, limited room for growth, and where machines are often more suitable than humans. Positions that truly require ideas, creativity, drive, and determination are mostly concentrated in major cities. So, I have always believed that major cities belong to young people—the hardships are worth enduring. Merely for the sake of "security," going back to receive a salary of one or two thousand, one's ability to withstand risks would be almost passive at the slightest disturbance. Furthermore, when you are older and wish to return, the costs are high, and the window of opportunity has long passed, making it even more challenging to re-enter a major city. Therefore, my advice to young people is very clear: prioritize major cities and try not to leave easily.

Q: Will women continue to depreciate with age?

Justin Sun: To some extent, this is also why we have always said that those born in the 1990s should try to delay marriage. With personal development and upward social mobility, you will see a bigger world and be able to make more mature and better choices. To provide an example that may be somewhat utilitarian but is sufficient to illustrate the point: a 17-year-old girl from a rural area, if she did not have exposure to mobile internet, did not leave her hometown through the college entrance examination, would likely have been married before turning 20. The potential partners she could meet would be limited to the local area, often from the group under the heaviest moral pressure. However, if she waits for a few more years, gets into a good university, or enters the online world through platforms like Taobao, becomes a content creator, a livestreamer, or an internet celebrity, and gains new development opportunities, her eligible spouse could be a college classmate or various individuals from the internet industry. Moving further forward, starting a business, entering the ecosystem of large companies, or even studying or working abroad to expand her horizons and life experiences would broaden the people and industries she can interact with, expanding her choices. Consequently, as she transitions from 17 to 27, or even up to 37, the individuals who can appreciate her, accept her, and truly resonate with her are no longer the same group that the small local radius could cover. Ultimately, the reason why marriage may bring greater happiness is because you have elevated yourself comprehensively; marriage is just a means to achieve this elevation and happiness, and it greatly depends on individual capacity enhancement.

Furthermore, in the internet era, 'childbearing' is no longer a compulsory duty for humans, and the uterus is definitely not the sole source of a woman's value. A recent iconic event was Jing Tianlei traveling to the United States for egg freezing. I believe that in the future, egg freezing and surrogacy are likely to become trendy choices for the new generation of women, harboring tremendous industrial opportunities. The extension of this 'three-view industrial chain' will have significant room for development. From the female perspective, egg freezing and surrogacy may become essential needs.

Moreover, to break the discourse that 'women will depreciate with age,' it is best to go to big cities where internet ethics prevail rather than small cities governed by traditional ethics. Ethics are a reflection of the stage of social development and can change: in places where traditional economics and institutions are dominant, the emphasis is still on concepts like 'three obediences and four virtues' and 'a woman's virtue lies in her lack of talent,' highlighting obedience to parents and husbands. Pursuing independence and happiness as a woman, and whether to marry or not, are deemed as 'immoral.' In major cities, personal value and self-improvement are the highest forms of 'ethics.' Using traditional norms to suppress others would be deemed unethical. For example, a 28-year-old female listener in Henan may face criticism like 'you are still not married at this age, shameful.' However, in Beijing, hardly anyone would say this to her face; even if they do, it would be rare. Big cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen are more inclusive and have diverse lifestyles, making it unlikely for a rigid moral judgment that forcefully pressures individuals into a uniform way of life to emerge. This is why we repeatedly emphasize: you must come to big cities to find your peers. Do not waste your time struggling against small-city norms and traditional ethics; what you need to do is encounter another version of yourself in a different world, and you can definitely find like-minded individuals in these major cities. We also do not recommend individuals holding such views to stay in small cities to 'fight'; they should come to big cities instead.

So the proposition of "whether women will continue to depreciate with age" is fundamentally flawed. According to the methodology and worldview of the Internet, people are the greatest value carriers of the era and society, regardless of gender. Your age, fertility, and appearance are not determining factors; what truly sets people apart is often the level of effort and growth trajectory.

Question: If your wife and mother fall into the water at the same time, whom should you save first?

Justin Sun: Marriage is sacred. Once you have taken the vow of marriage, you leave your family and form a new family with your partner. From this perspective, your commitment to this family may even exceed your commitment to your parents because this is possibly the first vow you actively chose in your life. When this commitment is challenged, you must do everything in your power to uphold this freely chosen vow.

Therefore, I believe that as a true man, his answer should be to save his wife first. This is because the wife is a vow he freely chose, while the vow to his mother is a vow based on blood relation. And as we know, in a truly civilized society, the fulfillment of any actively chosen vow takes precedence over a vow based on blood relation because a vow based on blood relation is not a chosen one. It's similar to the prioritization and subordination of debts in finance; they are all debts that you should indeed repay, but there is a priority in repaying which debt first and which debt later. The way we make this distinction is by looking at whether the accomplishment of this vow is the result of your active choice, which is very important.

Is it Heartless Not to Provide a Safety Net for Family Relationships?

Question: You often talk about the need to establish boundaries with parents, and the idea of not helping parents or siblings may seem too cruel or heartless. After all, in family life, when there is no distinction between yours and mine, there can still be joyful days.

Justin Sun: Let's take a little time to respond in detail to this question today; we will discuss the issue of "remembering money" later.

Let's address "heartless" first. I actually believe that it is the allocation of "sex and power" that is more heartless; money, in a sense, is warmer. This is because money does not discriminate against anyone; it offers you the possibility to change your destiny: if you have money, you have the opportunity to turn the tables, to change your power and status within the family, society, and country. Conversely, the allocation based on gender/bloodline is a fixed allocation: in traditional families, women often have no rights; no matter how hard they try, they are essentially easily seen as "tradable resources," sold off by parents to subsidize the growth and development of males. If distribution is not based on money, it will return to the distribution of "sex and power."

From this perspective, the distribution of "Sex and Power" is more ruthless. Even when talking about "ruthlessness," it's not about a ruthless worldview but about a ruthless reality. The world's basic law is very simple: to reap, you must first sow; if someone is to spend money, someone else must earn it. There is no free lunch, nor is there "reaping without sowing" or "having money without earning it." We are just expressing a set of worldviews that are more in line with the facts.

To be more direct: this is as simple as 1+1=2. A country's high welfare system is inevitably built on higher levies on those "who contribute more," in order for those "who don't contribute much" to enjoy that welfare. The state itself does not create tax revenue; it is only an organization for taxation and redistribution, and apart from operational losses, it does not directly produce value. Therefore, for the state to give money to A, it must first take money from B. Many people fail to understand this "there is no free lunch" principle: if someone gains in distribution, someone else must give up something in the distribution unless the "cake" gets bigger. However, we also know that the hardest thing in the world is precisely to make the cake bigger and earn money.

Therefore, this set of worldviews itself is not about whether it is "ruthless/not ruthless"; it simply reveals the facts. At the same time, if a comparison must be made, the distribution of "Sex and Power" is more ruthless; the distribution of "Money and Freedom" is better. The aversion to this point often stems from a "shoot the messenger" mentality: refusing to face the facts and instead directing anger at the messenger.

During the Roman Republic period, there was a legend: the Armenian King Tigranes II received a messenger reporting that the Roman general Lucullus was leading an invasion. He was furious, saying, "How dare you bring such bad news!" and immediately beheaded the messenger. However, beheading the messenger did not change the fact that the Roman army was already on its way. After that, no one dared to report the battle situation until the king himself was captured by Lucullus, and even his head was cut off. Shakespeare often wrote about this kind of plot. The lesson is the same: we did not create the "ruthless reality"; we just spoke it out.

Furthermore, I am not pessimistic about human nature. Overall, today's society is getting better. The distribution rules of "Money and Freedom" are fairer, more flexible, and provide individuals with more space to rewrite their destinies compared to the distribution rules of "Sex and Power." So, rather than calling it ruthless, it's better to call it clear-headed. By laying out the facts, defining boundaries clearly, and then discussing affection, responsibility, and mutual assistance, we can prevent love from turning into exploitation.

Question: Do your parents hope you will take the civil service exam or work for a state-owned enterprise?

Sun Yuchen: This is a great question. I think this is the expectation of the vast majority of Chinese parents for our generation. Including my dad. Because I graduated from Peking University as an undergraduate, many parents will think: since you've entered Peking University, especially in the humanities department studying history or Chinese, in your first year after graduation, it's best to enter the Central Organization Department, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or go to monopolistic state-owned enterprises like Wuhan Iron and Steel, PetroChina, or Sinopec, enjoy the benefits of working in these institutions, and settle down in Beijing. This satisfies my father's feeling of "my son has connections in Beijing."

But from the very beginning, I knew it wasn't right for me. I remember one time when my dad came to Peking University to take a stroll with me, I laid out my true thoughts to him: these places hardly leave any room for creativity and strongly suppress the creativity of young people. The only value young people have in there is obedience, being a cog in the machine, being an execution tool devoid of autonomy. It offers a semblance of stability: five thousand yuan a month, perhaps the promise of a "shared house" in the future, some elusive benefits, and the psychological comfort of "not being laid off."

But I don't believe in the so-called "not being laid off." China went through large-scale layoffs in the 1990s; only in the Mao Zedong era did they have what one could call an "iron rice bowl," or one could even say a "steel rice bowl," and that was shattered by the 1990s. Since history has already proven this, what reason is there to continue believing in the "iron rice bowl" today?

Furthermore, the young people entering these systems are already outstanding among their peers. With just a little effort, earning ten thousand in the market is very normal. There is no person worth ten thousand who should receive five thousand and feel grateful, lucky that they "at least weren't fired." This mindset sets expectations for one's abilities too low. You are not that lacking, you are just being tied down by a low-wage "stable" narrative.

Thirdly, this so-called stability is built on low wages and minimal growth, providing almost zero room for skill improvement. The day-to-day work content is far inferior to what you can learn in a startup or an internet company. Two or three years after graduation, the gap becomes very obvious. Many people will pay a high price for that initial "stability" choice.

Therefore, I do not recommend anyone to default to choosing a government position or a state-owned enterprise. The reason parents insist on us taking the exam is mostly based on the experience and narrative of their generation, a stereotype, a concept trap brought about by a fixed path. The real choice should go back to one's personality, abilities, aspirations, and the pace of life you desire.

Q: Have you ever had a big fight with your parents? Why?

Justin Sun: There was indeed a period when my relationship with my parents was very strained. Looking back now, it's a bit funny, but it was quite tough at the time. The biggest conflict occurred during my third and fourth year, while preparing to go to the United States, around 2011 and 2012. The reason was quite simple: being in the United States, finances were tight, economic pressure was high, and I happened to choose to do the "poorest" thing, which was entrepreneurship. Under pressure, my relationship with my parents began to deteriorate.

They also didn't quite understand my investment in studying abroad. At that time, I was spending three hundred thousand a year in the U.S., and they felt this money would be better spent staying in China to buy a house or do something else. In their eyes, this was a more "stable" arrangement; in my view, studying abroad was an investment in myself, an upgrade. The essence of the difference in perspectives is the clash between the traditional path and my more avant-garde choice.

There was a period of intense arguing, to the point where they even suspended their financial support for me. I had a quite difficult time living abroad. Looking back, my parents were indeed slowly influenced by me and now also appreciate many of my views. However, this change didn't need to come at the cost of hurt feelings or even "cutting off" support—ultimately, I was the one at a loss, and everyone was hurt. If I could do it over again, I would still stick to the same beliefs, but would handle it in a more gentle way, communicating more gently.

Q: How do you view parents who say they will arrange a safety net for their children's future?

Justin Sun: First of all, I personally believe that not only in the parent-child relationship, but in any relationship, there should not be a safety net obligation. What is a safety net obligation? It means that, no matter how bad you mess up, I will clean up the mess for you, giving someone such an implication, or actually doing so, is wrong. Of course, we know that in real life, in the vast majority of cases, you made it clear to the other party that you have a safety net obligation. However, when the other party really needs you to catch them, you simply can't, which I think is the most common scenario. So, if the safety net cannot hold, you should not have promised to provide a safety net in the first place. Children should not provide a safety net for parents, and parents should not provide a safety net for children. Just as I personally believe that a country should not provide a safety net for its citizens, and citizens should not provide a safety net for the country, it's the same; the obligations between a country and its people and between parents and children are the same.

Moreover, most of the tragedies we often see in life arise from giving the other party the implication of a safety net, or giving them the expectation of a safety net. The huge gap between the expectations and the actual inability to provide a safety net in the end often leads to many tragedies. For example, recently in the news, I saw that someone actually resorted to physical violence against their parents because, for instance, the parents couldn't buy them a house. Actually, the tragedy itself is that the parents should not have given their child the expectation of buying a house, and at the same time, you are not obligated to do so. And of course, in the end, you can't buy it, so this gap in expectations and the resulting rift in the relationship is often a very important catalyst in destroying the relationship on both sides due to the inconsistency of expectations and the significant problems caused by the presence of a safety net obligation.

I've seen many people, back when I was taking the college entrance examination, always felt that their dad or mom could help them make connections to get into a good university. In the end, the vast majority eventually found out it was simply unreliable, and this reliance on parents led to a lack of effort on their own part, ultimately harming themselves by going to a very poor school. This is just a very simple example; we all know that achieving success in this society is a very complex outcome. It sounds easy but is essentially complex. As we talked about before, it's a result of a complex variable of multidimensional competition that leads to success, which is very difficult. And the variables parents can control are few and far between, so can you expect that your parents pulling you up will lead you to success? This is as naive as the single-variable thinking we talked about before, where I just need to do this to achieve that. It's a very childish single-variable thinking. I know most of the second-generation riches I know have lost three or four hundred million in their entrepreneurial ventures, and there are too many examples of going bankrupt. And the parents of these second-generation riches are themselves very successful entrepreneurs. I won't name names here to avoid offending anyone, but I have met too many outstanding Chinese entrepreneurs, whose children have gone bankrupt in their actual entrepreneurial endeavors. So, think about these parents; they are outstanding in China, and some are even on the Forbes list, yet they cannot help their children truly succeed in actual entrepreneurship.

The vast majority of people, how can you expect your parents to ensure your success? So ultimately, everything depends on oneself. Therefore, I must build a mindset that does not place excessive demands and expectations on one's parents. Although parenting is an obligation, if one receives very little from it, there is truly nothing that can be done. On this point, I hope everyone does not have too many expectations because fundamentally it is ultimately a matter of self-awareness.

Secondly, I believe that parents' upbringing of their children should be considered an obligation. For example, I am 26 years old this year, and I believe it is very likely that I will have children in the next 10 years. When it comes to my daughter or son, I consider raising them to be my inherent duty because my children did not choose to come into this world; I forcefully brought them here. My children did not choose to come into this world through a subjective desire; I forcibly brought them here. Therefore, raising them is an obligation that I must fulfill, and just like Sun Yuchen, I will not consider the upbringing of my child as a primary reason to demand something back from them in the future or even to control my child's life. I will absolutely not do this, and legally, this is also untenable.

Thirdly, I believe children have an obligation to help their parents establish a safety net, such as helping them with a certain level of insurance, making arrangements for their future life to some extent, and providing the legally stipulated duty of support. However, when making such arrangements, you should try to stay within the parents' own ability and not provide assistance beyond the duty. What does this mean? Even if you help your parents buy insurance by assisting and choosing for them, the money should come from them, and you should provide the legally stipulated duty of support without offering excessive assistance. I believe as long as children can achieve this, it is basically enough.

Lastly, relationships between people can be good or bad, which is as normal as it gets. In your interactions with people worldwide, it is impossible to have a close relationship with everyone, and you may even have many enemies or people with whom you have enmity. This is very normal. Therefore, I believe that after fulfilling the previous 4 points, one's relationship with others, including parental relationships, is not subject to others' wisdom or discussion.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia