The most heated business battle in the traditional industry recently is undoubtedly the showdown between Laoluo and Xibe.

At the core of the argument, in the end, revolves a simple question: why is "pre-made food" so prevalent in the catering industry nowadays? The answer is four words, replicability. For a company, only by achieving a 60 out of 100 in quality like McDonald's and at the same time standardizing can one make it into a big business.

Who would have expected that nine years ago, Sun Yuchen had already elaborated on this "60-point scale-up entrepreneurial logic." Shifting the focus from catering back to business and investment, you will find a series of "leap choices" he made back then: bottom-fishing Bitcoin in 2012, going against the grain and going long on Tesla when it was being shorted, transitioning from investment to entrepreneurship, shifting from apps to blockchain, all share a similar methodology.

Reviewing the content related to investment and entrepreneurship in Sun Yuchen's "The Road to Financial Freedom Revolution" course, we can find the reasons why the post-90s Sun Yuchen was able to amass billions. His framework and logic in the investment and entrepreneurship race are valuable for young people who are still investing and starting a business today.

For ease of reading, BlockBeats has organized this series of open classes in a "from shallow to deep" manner, extracting the essence of the content on investment and entrepreneurship in the last part, as a follow-up to "Sun Yuchen's lecture 9 years ago caused a stir in the Internet: why not buy a house, a car, or get married?" and "Why can't Chinese people get rich for more than three generations? Nine years ago, Sun Yuchen gave a brutal answer," drawing a complete conclusion.

Deer won't pass by at any time; you have to lie in wait

1. What should you invest in to get rich quickly?

Sun Yuchen: At the current stage, investment itself is actually a huge topic, and many people will definitely take a lifetime to learn how to invest.

I think there are many good investment targets now. For example, stocks of some very excellent Internet companies, like Tencent, I think at least currently, buying Tencent's stock has no risk at all. Although I said, don't consider buying a house as a strategy, if you have a lot of money, buying a house in Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou is at least considered a frontline area. At least buying a house in Beijing and Shanghai won't be a losing deal, but this is not what I recommend.

My top recommendation is to invest in yourself, which is something I've actually made very clear before. The biggest problem for the vast majority of people is that they never realize one day that they should be living for themselves. First of all, I don't think it's selfish at all because I haven't thought it through. If you can't even live for yourself, how can you live for your wife? So when most people talk about investing in other things, such as investing in a house in Beijing or investing in Tencent's stock, you're first ignoring the fact that you are the one who should be invested in the most.

Do you claim to understand Beijing's housing prices or Tencent's stock price? You're not Pony Ma. But you definitely understand yourself the best: what kind of person you are, which weaknesses you need to address, and where you need breakthroughs in your life and career. Especially for the vast majority of those born in the 90s and 95s, time and money are already very limited. Even if you manage to scrape together 20,000 to buy 100 shares of Tencent and it goes up to 30,000 in two years, gaining 10,000, it's still better to buy a few more eggs to eat, which will benefit your health more. I believe that in this world, aside from winning the lottery, overnight wealth is impossible, so don't think about investing in anything other than yourself.

So from this perspective, Bitcoin isn't entirely what most people understand as an "investment" to me. It's actually a kind of personal belief, a vote of confidence in your personal career. If you are currently working at Tencent and have faith in the company, I would certainly recommend putting all your money into buying the options Tencent grants you, because this isn't just Tencent's stock, it's also your career. So I actually highly encourage young people, of course later on to join a startup company, to obtain options from the startup, and then to buy options from the startup. You must integrate this investment with your own career because a person actually doesn't have much capital to begin with. You must integrate everything with yourself, and I believe this is the only way to truly achieve a concentration of resources and find success.

2. How to seize the buying opportunity? Reflecting on your investment experiences in Tesla, Bitcoin, and Vipshop.

Justin Sun: Before talking about these three investments, let me share a few macro backgrounds. Since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system led by the United States in the 1970s and 80s, the global financial system has long been detached from the gold standard, showing a long-term trend of mild inflation. Even in the US dollar system, the dollar is over-issued every year; Japan and Europe have long-term low interest rates, even negative interest rates. In other words, by leaving money in the bank, not only do you not earn interest, but it's actually losing value. Continuous money printing by governments, weakening purchasing power of currency, resulting in the biggest phenomenon in the world: too much money.

Regarding the three targets I invested in: Tesla, Bitcoin, and Vipshop. These three investments were a few cases I made between 2011 and 2014 while studying in the United States, denominated in US dollars. By the way, even if you are on the mainland, you can invest in US dollar-denominated assets: US stocks, Bitcoin can be participated in through compliant channels. At that time, I invested in US stocks as a non-US tax resident, and under relevant rules, I was exempt from US capital gains tax. Of the three, Vipshop is a Chinese concept stock, Tesla is a US stock, and Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency denominated in US dollars.

When getting started with investing, the first lesson to remember is: price matters. While the quality of the company and its team are important, the buying price is even more crucial. Good investment opportunities are not scarce in the world; the key is at what price you enter. In this section, we will not delve into "how to judge a good company" but instead discuss the "timing": using three examples to explain when to buy.

Let's start with Vipshop. I believe its best buying point was during the mid-2012 "bloodbath IPO" period. How extreme was it then? The early investors in Vipshop, such as Sequoia and DCM, faced significant paper losses: the stock price was $6.5 per share, while the Series B price had already reached $10 per share. Many might ask: with such a low price, is the company in trouble? The reasons are not mysterious but roughly threefold: firstly, the Chinese concept stock credibility crisis; Wall Street overall had a negative view of Chinese companies. Secondly, the Chinese e-commerce sector was under pressure, with companies like JD.com and Vancle struggling. Lastly, Vipshop's Series C financing was not smooth sailing. It was not a case of "raise funds and then go public" but rather "failed to secure funding, so let's go public." With these triple pressures combined, the price naturally plummeted. However, this provided retail investors in the secondary market with an opportunity. The primary market would never have allowed someone like me, a student studying in America at the time, to participate, but in the secondary market, we could buy in.

Next, let's talk about Tesla. I believe the best buying point was at the end of 2012 to the beginning of 2013. During that time, there were also three "low points," similar in logic to Vipshop: firstly, the entire electric vehicle industry was at a low point. Companies like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Toyota were all working on electric cars, but results were generally poor. The mainstream market view still favored hybrid vehicles as the future, casting doubt on electric cars. Secondly, Tesla had just gone public, and there was strong short selling pressure from Wall Street. Many viewed Musk as a "storyteller" and believed that the company was only a concept without substance, leading to massive short positions. Thirdly, the issue of charging infrastructure remained unresolved: where to build charging stations, how many, and whether they could support nationwide travel. These were the questions of that time. It was precisely because of this that for an excellent company and an excellent founder, this misjudgment and uncertainty actually presented a great buying opportunity. Investing fundamentally involves continuously validating your beliefs with reality. If you were firmly bullish on hybrid vehicles and bearish on Musk back then, the market would have taught you a lesson. Paying tuition fees (under the condition that the position is manageable) can teach you a lot.

Lastly, let's talk about Bitcoin. Personally, I believe that early 2013, or even earlier, was one of the last high-quality buying windows. Unlike companies, Bitcoin was a new phenomenon at that time. The biggest opportunity with new phenomena lies in: when you judge its direction and core correctly, and most people have not yet understood it, positioning yourself early. Therefore, from the three examples above, we can draw a simple conclusion: the best buying opportunity is often in "good companies/good assets" that have not yet gained the confidence of the majority. Of course, the reverse question is also valid: since the majority are not optimistic, does that mean it is not good? The key lies in distinguishing the reasons for being "not optimistic": if it's a quantitative issue like funding, pace, cyclical sentiment, short-term indicators, most of these can be resolved. However, if there are fundamental issues, such as business logic, technical roadmap, long-term trends, then it's a different story altogether.

Using Vipshop as an example, the flash sale B2C model and inventory clearance logic it proposed can be successful; Tesla's all-electric lineup and vehicle integration capabilities are expected to be realized in the long term; Bitcoin's scarcity and decentralized nature also hold their position in the context of monetary overissuance and long-term inflation. A good target + misjudgment + good price/good timing, the moment when these three things coincide is when I make a move.

3. How to understand a company and its vision? Including how to understand fundamentals and financial data?

Justin Sun: I think this is very simple. The financial reports of listed companies will clearly specify key points, and anyone can download annual reports and quarterly reports from the company's investor relations page on the official website. As for a company's vision, it often has some distance from the business the company is currently engaged in and the problems it aims to solve, so a comprehensive judgment is needed. What I'm sharing today is also the result of a comprehensive judgment; if you want to see the company's own description, just go to the investor relations page to read the annual and quarterly reports. Annual reports are generally more thoughtful and deserve special attention.

As for financial data, I personally believe that among companies listed in the U.S., 99% dare not falsify data because the cost is too high and the consequences are severe, so financial data is generally reliable. The key is to see if these numbers point to the real problems the company is trying to solve: whether its money is being used in the right direction, which is very important.

Getting "seed shares" or "options" is usually quite distant for ordinary investors. What the public can buy is basically secondary market stocks. Stop dreaming about getting "seed shares" or "options" from anyone. If someone tries to sell you this kind of opportunity, it is most likely a scam. No compliant company will issue a large amount of stock to the public before going public, as this is neither in line with the regulations of the China Securities Regulatory Commission nor with those of the U.S. SEC. If you encounter such a situation, never get involved.

Is it possible to get options? Yes, but the premise is that you have to work for these companies. Seed shares are basically only possible for founders or a very small number of core early partners. For most people, what's more realistic is employee stock options: going to Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance, or even joining a company like mine, doing well, and waiting for the right time (usually after 2–3 years) to have the opportunity to get them. Whether they are valuable or not depends on the company's future development.

Another approach to consider is to pay attention to tech companies that go public on Nasdaq each year. If the stock price experiences a significant drop, breaks the IPO price, falls below the cost of many venture capital Series C or D rounds, and the fundamentals have not deteriorated, with the founder being outstanding enough, these "golden pits" are worth researching. The logic behind my purchase of Vipshop was based on this idea; Facebook's IPO price was $38, and at one point, it dropped to $18, below the cost for many funds, which was a great entry point. However, such opportunities are not always present. You have to wait patiently for them like hunting; deer won't pass by you all the time, you have to lie in wait.

Speaking of Bitcoin. Personally, I think the trend around the $6500 price level has not completed yet. The range of $5000–$7000, even if it doesn't break out, will fluctuate sideways for a long time and is unlikely to drop suddenly. I believe breaking $10,000 is a matter of time, and I am overall bullish on Bitcoin. In 2017, there was also the ETF application by the Winklevoss brothers, which, if approved, would be a positive development. Of course, there will be significant volatility in between. So, since you already hold Bitcoin, which inherently carries a high leverage, I do not recommend adding more leverage or venturing into futures trading. For those with limited capital, experiencing accelerated heartbeats every day due to this is meaningless. I rarely engage in high-frequency trading: I bought a wave early on for a bit over 100 RMB, sold when it reached 6000; then when it fell to around 1500, I started buying in batches again, 1500, 1400, 1300… all the way down to the 900s. The limit sell order I placed that night at 950 all executed, and I was surprised "how come there are still sellers at such a low price." Recently, when it surged to over 5000, I sold everything again, not because I was bearish but because I had other plans. So, if you want to buy now at 6500, you can, but do not go all-in. Leave room for yourself to buy more as it drops further, lowering your average cost. Looking at the long term, it's less likely to incur losses.

On a side note about Baidu. I have deep concerns about Baidu. It has been structurally bound by its profit model heavily reliant on search advertising, and its behavior pattern remains unchanged; it was further spoiled after Google exited China. It always chases short-term capital market preferences, such as jumping on the O2O trend with Baidu Takeout, lacking a unified strategic mindset on the mobile end, undergoing intense internal turmoil, overall giving me a sense of chaos. In this situation, I tend to see it as a target for short selling. It recently rose to 177, and I think short selling above 185 is feasible; for those more aggressive, around 177 is also worth considering. For me, being more conservative with short selling above 190 provides a greater sense of security and a higher margin of safety. Of course, these are all based on my personal judgment and preferences.

Returning to Bitcoin, I am not inclined to recommend heavy entry at the $6500 price level. The risk-reward ratio in the $6000–$8000 range is relatively balanced, with the safety margin not being particularly high. In the short term, a drop is also possible, leading to losses, but holding for the long term is definitely a high probability of making money.

Instead of that, I prefer opportunities with a higher margin of safety and a more confident outlook. In any case, all investments require rhythm and position management—avoid going all-in midway. Also, be wary of the impact of "herd irrationality": during my process of buying at 1500 and watching it drop all the way to 900, my mindset was also very tormented; therefore, do not start with a too heavy position, leave yourself gradients, buy more as it drops, gradually averaging down the cost, and become a patient long-term investor.

The Internet is the last upward mobility channel

4. When did you realize you wanted to pursue entrepreneurship? On the night you confirmed you had made over 10 million RMB, did you manage to sleep?

Justin Sun: This was a quite dramatic moment in my life. Strictly speaking, by the end of October 2013, I had already made 10 million RMB, but I was completely unaware of it. Because I was in seclusion preparing for the LSAT (Law School Admission Test). The LSAT is held in February, June, October, and December each year, and at that time, I was focusing on the one on December 15.

So, in fact, I already possessed the attributes of a millionaire at that time, it had been about half a month, but at that time, I was still unaware, still worrying about two or three dollars a day. And at that time, I was just preparing for the LSAT every day. On the night after the exam, I finally opened my computer to check the Bitcoin price and was shocked: before seclusion, it was around 500 RMB, but on the screen, it showed 6000 RMB. My initial reaction was that the computer had an error, after confirming with a few friends in the Bitcoin circle, I was sure that the price had indeed risen to 6000. I was extremely excited at that moment.

First of all, I felt two things. One was like predicting "the sunrise in the east and the sunset in the west" by hand and then actually witnessing it happen. It felt like a physicist deducing the orbit of a planet using a formula and then looking it up in the sky. Just like back then, based on the abnormal orbit of Uranus, calculated according to the law of universal gravitation, and finally discovered Neptune. My feeling was like this, a joy almost akin to a "scientific discovery." Second, we self-deprecatingly called ourselves the "Bitcoin Cult" believers, with a strong emotional and belief reliance on Bitcoin. Seeing it being "acknowledged" by reality was truly a moment of overwhelming joy.

So, of course, I couldn't sleep that night, which directly influenced the trajectory of my life because I had always wanted to study law, become a regular lawyer, being a lawyer was one of my life aspirations, but after this experience, it completely turned me toward entrepreneurship, which I have been on to this day. In fact, I started my entrepreneurial journey in 2012, but at that time, I did not see it as a lifelong career. The success of this investment has indeed led me to embark on a completely different path, which I think has also changed my life.

5. Is it still a good time to enter the Internet now?

Justin Sun: This is like that famous question: When is the best time to plant a tree? The first best time was ten years ago, the second best time is now. Starting from 1995, every few years, someone would ask the same question; the best time last time was ten years ago, and the next best is always now. This still holds today. When Ma Huateng and Jack Ma just delved into the Internet, many companies like Sohu and Sina had already been listed on NASDAQ, but they still caught up later.

The Internet industry undergoes rapid reshuffling, which is a great advantage for young entrepreneurs. Basically, every five years, there will be a reshuffle. It's like playing Texas Hold'em. If your starting hand is bad, no problem, deal another one; wait for another wave after five years. The industry has a repositioning round every five years, sometimes new hot spots emerge in less than 5 years. As long as you stay at the table, you'll always get a good hand. Wang Xing is the best example.

In 2003, Wang Xing returned to China from the United States and founded "Xiaonei.com" (a social networking site for universities), which ended in failure and was eventually sold at a low price to Chen Yizhou. In 2007, he created "Fanfou," but still could not succeed. At that time, Fanfou crossed the regulatory red line and was severely impacted, almost crumbling after being "disconnected." Otherwise, today's hit might not have been Sina Weibo but Fanfou. In 2010, after several defeats, Wang Xing fought again and founded Meituan. This time, he finally turned the tide and built a company with a market value of billions of dollars. You see, Wang Xing's entrepreneurship journey in 2003, 2007, and 2010 grabbed opportunities every three to four years; that's the basic logic.

If placed in a traditional industry, turning the tide would be much harder. Firstly, traditional industries rarely experience reshuffling. Those who initially get a good hand often continue to win. In many American industries like oil and steel, the earliest pioneers such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, once they establish a leading position with heavy asset investment, it's challenging to be shaken unless they encounter a once-in-a-century energy revolution. The financial industry is similar. Brands like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, once established, even if you try to go solo, it's challenging to compete with the giants.

The internet is different. Even if a startup fails, "serial entrepreneurs" are more favored by venture capitalists. The internet changes rapidly: in the first decade, entities like Sina, Netease, and Sohu were dominant; now they have been replaced by Alibaba and Tencent. Just two years ago, Baidu could be part of BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent); but in just two or three years, people are already talking about "AT," indicating Baidu has faded to some extent. When Sina and Sohu were at their peak, many later successful "elders" had not even entered the industry. Therefore, I believe that opportunities are always available in the internet industry.

Another advantage of the internet is its rapid growth. Even without external examples, let's take "Pinduoduo" as an example. The company has been in operation for a little over a year, almost two years. Personally, my entrepreneurial journey has only been for 5 years, but "Pinduoduo's" valuation, revenue, and net profit have surpassed many enterprises in the catering and traditional industries that have been operating for ten or twenty years. From a time efficiency perspective, it's very cost-effective; in terms of human efficiency, it's also stronger. Our team of more than 30 people can achieve the same scale as three to four hundred people or even over a thousand people in the traditional industry. One employee can match ten or even twenty of theirs. Therefore, the internet is indeed very attractive.

6. When you first started your business and encountered setbacks, what did investors tell you?

Justin Sun: This is also an interesting point in my life. In January 2014, when I had just returned to China, I scheduled meetings with a few investors to discuss my project before the Chinese New Year. One very well-known fund partner, almost without letting me finish explaining my idea, directly said to me, "Yuchen, stop worrying your parents. Modify your resume. There are still six months before the next batch of students return to China to look for jobs. You are considered a fresh graduate. Fresh graduate status is crucial; maybe you can settle in Beijing. Don't mess around; don't ruin the opportunity of being a fresh graduate and the chance to settle down, only to end up jobless. Don't think about starting a business for now; focus on finding a job."

Looking back now, he was probably mostly well-intentioned. He may have genuinely thought that my skills were average and that I couldn't support myself. From a timing perspective, there were only 6 months left before the job hunting window closed, and I didn't have any impressive internship experience to show. But at the time, I still felt severely underestimated and reacted strongly.

I replied to him: "Even though I haven't worked a job before starting my own business, Zuckerberg and Gates also didn't work a job before starting their own ventures. Their first project was successful. Why do you have to work a job before being able to start a business?" He asked me: "Do you think you are Zuckerberg or Gates?" And that's where the conversation ended on a sour note. Looking back now, that saying still holds true — stick to your original intentions.

7. What is the most challenging stage during the entrepreneurial process?

Justin Sun: I think the earliest stage is not that difficult. When I started my business in 2012, there were many things I didn't understand, like registering a company in the US or handling taxes. But because everything was new, despite the hardships, I was learning something new every day, and I didn't need to force myself with "passion." The real challenge came when the novelty wore off after about two years, around 2014 or 2015. Entrepreneurship had become your routine, a part of your life. The real question was whether you could treat it as a marathon and be willing to continue running that marathon. That, to me, is the real challenge.

Around 2014, I took a few classes at Hupan University, and it was then that I made a significant decision in my mind: I would devote my life to entrepreneurship and position myself as a "professional entrepreneur." Entrepreneurship might fail; TRON may not succeed, and the company might even collapse. But in all likelihood, I would take a break and start another project, not venture into a different life. Personally, this was a form of emancipation for me.

Since my freshman year, I've always had a strong identity crisis: not knowing who I am, what my life's value is, and where I'm heading. The spiritual bewilderment and strategic void have caused more pain and detours than simply not being diligent enough. Looking back, at 26, I'm probably in the happiest stage of my life so far, not because I've made money or achieved the so-called external success, but because I've tackled the fundamental identity crisis: I know what kind of person I am, what I'm willing to strive for in this lifetime, and I've found clear positioning and strategic coordinates. For me, this is the core of happiness.

8. Traditional industries have a relatively stable environment, ample known data, and an assembly-line production model. People can often make relatively accurate trend forecasts for the industry's future, producing industry reports for five or even ten years. However, in the Internet age, there is too much uncertainty—uncertain products, uncertain users, and uncertain trends. How can we find a method to adapt to this "uncertainty"?

Justin Sun: The first term is almost universally known, MVP. Here, MVP is not the "Most Valuable Player" in basketball, but rather minimum viable product. In the internet industry, where the external environment and user behavior are highly uncertain, we must let "data and reality" inform us of the direction our product should take. I remember Zhang Xiaolong once said: "Products are not designed, they evolve." In other words, even he himself couldn't predict what WeChat would look like two or three years later at the beginning. Everything must revolve around user experience, usage scenarios, and data feedback, continuously iterating and evolving.

Therefore, it is decided that products should be as restrained as possible in the initial investment: first, create the lowest-cost, most streamlined but genuinely usable version, use it to collect feedback, validate assumptions, and then evolve along the user experience. This is precisely the aspect that many traditional enterprises are least adaptable to when they go online. Many of my friends at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business have encountered this: once they decide to transform into an internet company, they want to design a "comprehensive" website or app, think through the features for the next five to ten years at once, and then have the product manager finish it in one go. In the internet world, this is almost impossible. The correct approach is "small steps, fast iterations," polishing one small feature at a time and then building up step by step.

Because I am also a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), I can see similar issues in government projects. When undertaking livelihood projects, they always hope for an "in one go" approach, allowing the public to enjoy a complete "internet experience" all at once, such as various "livelihood cards" or "people's welfare platforms."

However, internet products are never a one-step process; even the establishment of these projects must wait for real user feedback after they go online to be judged. The traditional "project initiation—approval—one-time completion" engineering logic will bring about tremendous waste: either the project is outdated as soon as it lands, or it cannot continue to iterate based on changes in reality and user behavior, ultimately becoming an "abandoned project." And the "pilot—validate—iterate" mechanism that truly aligns with the internet worldview is often not part of the government process, making it difficult to implement good practices.

This methodology can be summed up as: MVP + rapid iteration. Mainstream internet products are updated ten to twenty times a year, averaging once every two weeks; the speed is evident. Taking the "Join Me App" that I founded as an example, we basically maintain a bi-weekly version release rhythm, allowing users to experience a new version that better fits their experience and cognition every now and then. Even so, our pace in the industry may not be considered fast. In comparison, the update cycle of traditional engineering and consumer products is often measured in "years" or "decades," with housing even counted in twenty, thirty, or fifty years. In internet society, these long cycles are compressed into "annual iteration, monthly iteration, weekly iteration," and even "daily iteration."

Furthermore, as we can see, the form of apps will gradually be replaced by lighter forms in the future. In the era of H5/mini-programs where "what you see is what you get, what you touch is what you use," even local updates are unnecessary. With just one update on the server, users instantly have access to the latest version. Thus, the pace of micro-innovation and iteration is being compressed to a "per-second" granularity. In this "per-second iteration" era, who dares to say that everything they have can remain unchanged forever?

Let's take our university life as an example. I once shared with a friend my approach to joining clubs during my university days. I remember when I was at Peking University, many friends would only join one or two clubs when they first entered, and then they would end their club life in university after sticking to those one or two clubs. As for me, I preferred to initially sign up for twenty or thirty clubs, spend two weeks exploring each club, and then continue participating in one or two clubs that I liked in the long term.

This is the application of the "uncertainty principle," where exploration comes first, and selection is based on real experiences and data feedback rather than preconceived "planning." The same applies to the workplace: many people in the early stages of their careers explore various companies and positions, only to enter their more specialized field one or two years later. This "trial and error - learning - iteration" path may just be the optimal route to financial freedom in this era. Even in traditional industries, this represents a significant breakthrough in ideology.

9. You have been talking about the benefits of the Internet. What are the specific advantages of the Internet over traditional industries? What is the core advantage of the Internet industry?

Justin Sun: The Internet has created not only a new world but also has the ability to unleash a significant amount of suppressed demand in the old world. A typical example is that e-commerce has driven the express delivery industry, leading to an overall increase in societal retail sales. Today, let's talk about the second benefit of the Internet, which is favorable for entrepreneurs: currently, it is relatively free from various regulations. The reason is simple: the Internet is a new phenomenon. Although insiders understand that it does not have any "mysterious" high-tech threshold, outsiders often perceive it as sophisticated, and governments have limited understanding of it. Hence, it is subject to relatively little regulation, which is crucial for the healthy development of the industry.

For example, let's consider the "Peiwo App" that I developed. The company has been operating for so long without visits from the environmental protection bureau, infrequent visits from the industrial and commercial bureau, and no troubles from departments such as anti-corruption, family planning, or health. Apart from legal tax payments and complying with regulations to pay social security for employees, requiring interactions with tax and human resources departments, we have almost no interaction with other government departments. For first-time Internet entrepreneurs, this is actually a significant advantage.

Why do I say this? I participated in the CEO class at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business and found that the level of regulation in traditional industries is generally very strict. Taking mining (such as copper mining) as an example: in the eyes of some local governments, you are a "cash cow," and they would even send a working group to stay in your company. Energy conservation and emission reduction, environmental protection steps in; occupational health and safety, quality inspection, and safety supervision steps in; not to mention taxation, a string of departments shows up. Compliance processes in many places are not transparent, and whether you can "pass the test" often becomes a matter of relationships and costs. Taking the most common example of fire approval: although it is not specified to use a "designated company" in principle, if you don’t follow the "default path," the process could be delayed by a month; while using a "designated company" can get you through in just a week. For companies, once the office space is rented, of course, the faster, the better. Such time-consuming bottlenecks are not uncommon in quality inspection, safety inspection, energy-saving, and other processes.

Some might say: After all, miners are a minority. So let's switch to a more common scenario, opening a public bathhouse in a big city. Entrepreneurs might think that "selling hot water" is simple: set up a bathhouse, heat the water, provide service, and that's it. However, upon opening, you'll encounter the standard procedures from the industry and commerce department, taxation requirements, the need to communicate with water and electricity suppliers, environmental protection checks on the chimney, urban management inspections of the storefront facade, health and disease control inspections, and fire departments identifying fire hazards... One department after another comes in, many of them still requiring your "prompt cooperation." In the end, when you look back, the actual substantial issues found are few, but whether you can open, how long you can open for, and when you can open are often controlled by others, leading to the emergence of "under-the-table costs" that need to be managed at every turn.

Whether it's a "grand entrepreneurship" or a "small business," in many traditional industries, administrative controls significantly inflate costs. From an economic perspective, this artificially raises your unit costs. What was originally a simple bathing service that could start at 100,000 units might easily turn into 200,000 units with various pre-approvals and compliance costs piled on top. Ultimately, these costs will be passed on to consumers, but entrepreneurs will also be worn out by these matters. In my early years, I also tried to save money by handling fire safety and processes myself, but it turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. Now I prefer to hire someone to do it and focus my energy on more important matters. Not to mention how troublesome it was to even register a company back then, leading to the birth of a large number of agency services.

Therefore, "streamlining administration and delegating powers" is crucial to the business environment. The most basic rule of business is: the fewer the controls, the more vibrant the market; the more the controls, the more stagnant the market. What is more important to note is that most of these controls happen "before you enter the market." A significant amount of compliance costs must be paid upfront, meaning that even before you open your business and earn a single cent in income, you have to pay all kinds of "fees." To give a somewhat inappropriate analogy: the mafia will at least wait for you to make money before collecting "protection fees"; however, some upfront compliance costs require you to pay as long as you "want to make money," even if the future is uncertain. This is not based on profit income tax but on a myriad of upfront expenses that artificially raise the threshold for entrepreneurship.

10. How to earn your first million? How to choose a promising industry track?

Sun Yuchen: In my opinion, whether it's earning 1 million, 10 million, or even the "small goal of one billion" mentioned by Wang Jianlin, the core lies in "strategy." If someone truly wants to succeed and make money urgently, execution ability is generally not a big issue; I assume diligence is already a given, at least not much worse than others. So, the key is still strategy, especially after 3 to 5 years in the workplace, you need to think about "choosing an industry." What industry should you choose for the most help? On a broad scale, I believe the Internet industry should take priority; even in non-Internet industries, you must consider how to integrate with the Internet, improve efficiency, and amplify output in an Internet-based manner. Today, many examples revolve around the Internet, but "the Internet" is not as simple as just "being online"; it has a whole set of methodologies and industry standards. I've seen many traditional bosses in business schools who understand the Internet as "building a website," but the difference is significant.

First, let me talk about the 5 golden rules of choosing an industry. These 5 rules not only apply to choosing a career but also to analyzing companies, selecting stocks, and investing. The fundamental judgment framework is very similar.

Rule 1: Choose an emerging industry that has not yet experienced a "big bang" but is on the brink of an explosion. At this stage, the industry dividend is the greatest. For example, in recent years, platforms focused on live streaming and high traffic have generally performed well, as they have tapped into the industry dividend. You might be in a leading company where, even if your individual performance is average, riding the industry wave together can also earn you money. Pay attention to the timing: being too early can lead to being a pioneer (for example, many people working on artificial intelligence in previous years became cannon fodder because many areas have not yet been fully commercialized); being too late means missing out on the dividend.

Rule 2: The industry should be both "fast and enduring." My basic definition is: annual compound growth of at least 20% and the ability to sustain growth for 10 years, preferably 15 to 20 years. Applying this rule to A-shares, most companies do not meet the criteria, and the ceiling of many racetracks is right in front of them. When entering an industry, one must go through a complete cycle of "entry-accumulation-harvest-exit," which should take at least 10 years; if you hit the peak in two or three years, it is meaningless. When Buffett chose Coca-Cola back then, it was also because he judged that the carbonated beverage market had a sustained high-growth "long runway." Compound interest may not look impressive in the first few years, but with a long enough runway, the later gains are considerable.

Rule 3: Rapid replication and extensive diffusion. Once you break through at one point, can you quickly replicate it in more cities/populations/scenarios? This is a typical characteristic of the internet industry. For example, Luo Min from Fenqile, where my upstairs office is located, was small two years ago but has now become part of Qudian Group, preparing for an NYSE IPO. The key to its scalability lies in the ability to replicate. Our own Peiwo App is also like this; once the strategy of voice live broadcasting is mature, expanding nationwide relies on its "replication power." The counterexample is in the restaurant industry, especially in Chinese cuisine, where standardization and replication are challenging; Michelin three-star chefs are scarce "people," not a scarce "process." With family heritage and twenty years of training for one head chef, how many restaurants can you operate at most? McDonald's can replicate because of its "standardization" and "real estate model"; it does not rely on master chefs. Similarly, in sectors like healthcare, law, and investment banking, which heavily rely on human deliverables, scale expansion is naturally limited; you cannot recruit 200,000 investment banking advisors and handle all the world's IPOs like JD.com; quality and compliance would instantly collapse. Therefore, the market values of many traditional brokerage and investment banking firms are not as exaggerated as you might imagine. Consequently, even if traditional enterprises secure funding, replication is slow; internet companies dare to raise hundreds of millions because once the model is established, the speed of replication is rapid. Be wary of "pseudo-internet" businesses that only move their operations online but have core processes that cannot be replicated or standardized; they will eventually falter.

Rule 4: The demand must be clear, preferably a "must-have" or a new demand that has not yet been explored. Many companies are touting VR/AR/AI concepts that do not meet the criteria of "clear/replicable demand"; even if the track seems new, caution is advised. Here are two examples of "must-have" demands: high-paying users of the Peiwo App, whose core motivation is very simple, "boredom." Post-90s people in third, fourth, and fifth-tier cities who have money and time to spare have a clear demand to alleviate boredom; this is a must-have demand. Momo makes money by tapping into this type of demand. Another example is early-stage campus lending; while banks were not involved, university students had a strong demand to borrow money to buy iPhones, bags, which couldn't be stopped; there were even incidents of "nude loans" reported in the news. "Must-have" demands are not limited to focusing on basic needs; those racetracks are often oversaturated. Apply the "seven deadly sins" to understand human needs: pride, which corresponds to social networking among acquaintances for show off; platforms like the News Feed, Facebook, LinkedIn, Snapchat all satisfy this craving for display; lust, within legal limits, has also nurtured a significant market... Understanding demands through human nature is more effective than merely focusing on product categories.

Rule Five: Match Your Own Abilities and Accumulation. The first four rules are all well and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it "belongs to you." Do you have 10,000 hours of accumulation in this industry? Is the team's DNA a good fit? Many big companies fail because they "rush to seize new opportunities," ending up facing serious adaptation challenges. Even if the first four rules check out but it's not a good fit for you personally, then take on the role of an investor rather than getting directly involved. For us ordinary folks, such pure investment opportunities are rare because the "emerging and about to take off" promising tracks often haven't reached the secondary market yet.

Speaking of the secondary market, I like opportunities where the "old tree sprouts new shoots," where a company that has long been listed and remained obscure suddenly experiences a reshuffling of the deck due to industry restructuring, new demands/technologies, reigniting its past accumulation, and getting a fresh start; it just happened to receive two Aces. The 2016 star was NVIDIA, the first stock in artificial intelligence: originally focused on GPUs and under the pressure from Intel; when the era of AI arrived, GPUs became the core of computing power, and the demand from the B-end surged. It met the criteria of the first four rules: a new track, rapid and sustainable growth, globally replicable, strong demand, and a focus on AI. Companies betting on AI are not concerned about the cost of the chips and emphasize the importance of "genetic matching." This is what we call a "heaven-sent opportunity."

Let me give you another example that I recently analyzed and found promising: LC (LendingClub). Internet finance is still a nascent industry globally, and looking at the credit data in the U.S., the volume is still small but growing rapidly with no major issues sustaining a 20% growth rate year over year for ten consecutive years. The model is replicable, and it has "educated its peers" on a global scale; financial needs are inherently essential. The only downside is with the fifth rule, the execution risk of management turnover. The company had previously faced compliance issues leading to the abrupt replacement of the founder/CEO/chairman by the board directly, causing the stock price to halve to just over $3 with cash on hand nearly surpassing the market value. It later rebounded to around $6. Given the broader industry environment, interest rate hikes, and short-term regulatory challenges, the structural setup of the "old tree sprouting new shoots" remains in place. Here I am just presenting an analysis within the framework and it does not constitute investment advice.

There are similar opportunities in some companies in the 3D printing sector: early listings that once plummeted due to "pseudo-demand," but when technology/costs/scenarios align, the secondary market provides a window for a "value return." Seizing one such opportunity is worth more than a million.

Use this framework for selecting companies, industries, and bosses. If a boss's decision-making path aligns with what I mentioned above, joining their company would at least not lead you to be cannon fodder. Buying stocks comes later; first, use this method to choose "industry + boss + position" because you are putting two to three years of your youth into it; stocks are just sleeping money, but betting on human capital in the wrong track carries an extremely high cost.

Finally, let me talk about my two investment cases, which also completely adhere to this set of standards. From the end of 2012 to early 2013, I bought Tesla: it belongs to the track of "not experiencing significant growth yet, but about to take off" in the new energy vehicle sector, with countless predecessors in the industry having fallen. Tesla's entry point was extremely accurate; it started with a "low-priced sports car," seizing the "acceleration" essential in the sports car field, where electric cars accelerate faster. Sillicon Valley's group that neither wanted to drive a "plain" sports car nor had enough money but were trendy, were all captured. The track is "fast and enduring," can run for ten years with no issues; in terms of replicability, Tesla's factory is highly automated, with hardly any workers visible, operating 24/7, capacity is an engineering issue and not a human one; the demand is clear, and marketing is strong; team alignment, Elon Musk is a master in government relations and marketing, and new energy cannot be separated from policy resources such as subsidies and road rights; for new concept companies, marketing capabilities are especially essential, Musk's experience with PayPal also verified his execution ability. So I bought the stock of this company back then.

So many novices only understand linear functions. Once it becomes dynamic and involves multiple variables, they get lost, which is actually a typical poor mindset. If we were to graph the change in wealth: the horizontal axis is time, and the vertical axis is wealth value. Novices typically believe that wealth will grow along a slow upward straight line: wanting to earn 1 million, they think they have to climb up gradually point by point like 1 thousand, 2 thousand, 3 thousand, 4 thousand, 5 thousand, 6 thousand. But in reality, the true wealth curve looks more like an upward-opening parabola. The initial growth rate may not even be as good as a straight line: the straight line has saved 5 thousand, 10 thousand by the second or third year, while the parabola is still below the straight line at this point; but in the later stages, the parabola's explosive power will far exceed the straight line. Perhaps following the straight line method, it would take 50 years to save 2 million, while the parabola could reach this level in the third, fourth, or fifth year.

Take a senior Alibaba engineer as an example. Everyone knows that this group of people may be very wealthy, with many having tens of millions in net worth. But if he worked at Jack Ma's company for 10 years and only saved a total of 10 million (let's say we are underestimating), is it because Jack Ma gave him 1 million each year for ten years? Clearly not. In 90% of cases: he received a monthly salary of one or two thousand at Alibaba, with a little stock option; after four years, the salary would only be a little over 2 million. The key point is that he receives stock options vest every year, then cashes out Alibaba stocks to get a few million, adding up to reach this 10 million income.

The vast majority of truly lucrative models are like this. However, novices cannot understand this; they only comprehend the "straight line." In their view, a person earning 10 million must rely on a salary: earning 100 thousand per month, 1.2 million per year, continuously for ten years. It's difficult for them to accept the difference in paths like "salary is not high, relying on option exercises to achieve exponential growth."

For example, I am currently starting a new project in entrepreneurship in the blockchain and cryptocurrency field, with the English name TRON, and the Chinese name has not been fully decided. The rules of this field have not been fully established yet; it is a new track where the rules are still evolving. Some well-informed individuals have already inquired about it, and some have even come to my Weibo to ask. I think that these kinds of people are not lacking in skills, and are very likely to make money because of their information. Unlike some people, their minds are like logs, very numb, indifferent even when the flood reaches their doorstep. The difference between people often lies in the circulation and sensitivity of information.

Regarding this new project, I will provide a detailed introduction in the program later on; why are we engaging in Bitcoin, blockchain, and digital currency? The core reason is also because this is a new field, rules are being formed, requiring urgent integration, and possessing high growth potential. Also, let me mention recruitment: we currently lack talents in computer-related fields the most, and we also welcome students with a strong background in mathematics and algorithms. Even if you are not in a technical role, as long as you can work in customer service, marketing, PR, or promotion, we welcome you. If you wish to join our company, you can leave a message on my Weibo with the same name "Sun Yuchen," or leave a message below this program, and our colleagues will contact you.

Blockchain is also considered part of the finance sector. Let me make a choice within "Finance": to go to blockchain, or to go to the already established and seemingly prestigious Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs? I would definitely choose the former. Because in those large companies, from a regular analyst all the way to Managing Director, it would take at least twenty to thirty years, by the time your hair turns gray, and this is assuming a smooth-sailing journey. But if I spent those twenty to thirty years immersed in cryptocurrency, no matter how I "get by," I could still become the CEO of a decent company; the earnings at that point are often much more than that of an MD, and the sense of industry achievement is much stronger. This is the advantage and dividend of "setting the rules." Waiting until all the rules are set before entering, we often joke: you can't even "eat hot food." So, working in areas where rules have not yet been established is often the best choice.

11. However, given the current societal class rigidity, how should we strive?

Justin Sun: During China's period of transformation, internet startups were the last upward channel. I have mentioned this many times on the show, but many people still don't believe it. The Bible says it well: God reveals the truth to people, but they choose to turn a blind eye. Many people who complain about class rigidity indeed overlook the fact that the internet serves as a crucial opportunity for national development and also provides an upward path for the majority, but they often miss the opportunity. From my personal experience, as long as you join an internet startup, persist for a year, you can become a semi-senior veteran; two years make you a senior veteran, and within three years, you can basically become the most senior employee apart from the boss, of course, under the condition that the company hasn't gone bankrupt. Switching to another industry, it is almost impossible to receive such treatment.

If you become a civil servant, in three years, you are just getting started, at most you have figured out the office procedures; the same goes for other state-owned enterprises and traditional industries. Let me give an example of a classmate, which you can relate to. He and I both attended Peking University for undergraduate studies, then he went to one of the top five schools in the world for his master's degree (I won't mention which one, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, you guess for yourself). After graduation, he entered one of the big four domestic banks. After three years in the bank, he basically understood the ins and outs, but these three years, don't even think about a raise or promotion. It is like entering a government office, undergoing a "five hundred cane strikes" first. The first year, dispatched to the most remote and backward branch to work as a teller, supposedly to "understand grassroots." Plainly speaking, if you really want training, half a month is enough, if not, one month at most, definitely not a year. In the second year, returning to a big city, continuing as a teller, maybe engaging in some so-called "advanced business" in the office, but these are tasks that can be learned in three months. If you excel in the third year, perhaps you can go to an overseas branch, still doing the most basic work. In short, the first three years are just the starting price, and you cannot expect too much.

It should be understood that this is already the best promotion track, not an encounter where you can't survive, but rather "reemployment." It's like should you come to "accompany me APP," I'll have you sweep the door for three years first, still calling it "reemployment." You should understand this in the banking system. Of course, banking is a good industry, but in terms of the promotion path, it is far inferior to the internet. This also explains why some banks repeatedly have scandals such as "unwritten rules" and sexual harassment: the upward space is too narrow, power is highly concentrated, and many people, in order to be confirmed and promoted quickly, take the grey area.

On our end, we don't need that. In my fifth year of entrepreneurship, I have never subjected anyone to unwritten rules. It's very simple: the company only looks at performance. People with strong abilities can come in and be on the front line or even lead a team within two months; those who are slacking off are shown the door in two months. What we want is results, not a "big stick" approach. It is also for this reason that internet companies find it difficult to foster sexual harassment and "unwritten rules," as these issues often arise in situations of imbalanced power: a director's single word can determine the life or death of an actor, and a senior leader in a large corporation can make a final decision with a single strike. Startup companies are different – if you have the ability, you can break through the glass ceiling on the spot; but if you are just playing it safe, you won't last here, as the boss can see right through you at a glance. Conversely, people with real abilities in these types of companies are quickly recognized and utilized, and there is no concept of a "three-year initiation period." In an internet company, you can make a significant impact in three months and be remembered by everyone.

Why can you become a senior member after three years in an internet company? The reason is simple: the average lifespan of Chinese startup companies is only 2.7 years. If you stay for one year, half of the companies will shut down; stay another year, and another half will close; eliminate another half in the third year, and very few will survive in the end. Being able to stay in a startup for a full three years first of all shows that you have good judgment and have chosen a team that exceeds the average lifespan. We have been working on this project for 2.5 years (I have been an entrepreneur for 5 years), and the business situation is still good. From my estimation, we should be able to last another two years with no major issues, surpassing the average lifespan.

Furthermore, after three years, you will undoubtedly be a senior member. The company has only been around for three years in total, so if you've been there from the beginning to the end, who else but you could be considered a senior member? Also, there is high turnover in startup companies. Based on our own experience, initially, there were people in all positions who were here to "gain experience," and some were exposed by me after a short time and let go. It might take dismissing three or four individuals to retain one who is truly capable. Some people also feel "unsuitable" and leave voluntarily. The turnover rate was indeed high in the first two years, gradually stabilizing in the second and third years. Those who stay during this time are basically the backbone of the company.

Thirdly, three years usually mark the beginning of the company's harvest period. Many teams do not survive the first two years, so if you're still there in the third year, it means the company has found its position and direction in the market and has begun to grow steadily. If the company hasn't shut down by the fourth or fifth year, it often means it has entered the fast lane. A company that can last ten years has typically established a very clear advantage in its niche field. Look at Alibaba, it's only 18 years old today. This trajectory is very similar to the mortality rate in medicine: in China, the death rate of children aged 0–4 is about 1.2‰, which drops to about 0.2‰ between 5 and 9 years old, and then further decreases to around 0.1‰ between 10 and 14 years old. The earlier risks are six times higher than the later ones. Companies follow the same pattern: they are most vulnerable when just starting out, with the lowest immunity, crying being their only skill. The early days of starting a company were truly a saga of blood, sweat, and tears: if you wanted to hire someone, you first had to find someone who could hire people; you didn't know who to ask to change the water in the water cooler; there was no administrative support, and you had to do everything yourself. At the same time, whether your idea could be validated by the market and attract enough users and partners was also being tested. Straightening out these key issues often leads to the third year, which is why the "high mortality rate" of startup companies is concentrated in the first three years.

12. In traditional thinking, entrepreneurship often involves opening a store, turning it into a century-old shop, and adhering to a set of stable business principles and personal codes of conduct in the long term. However, in your generation, the post-90s generation, like yourself, Yu Chen, as you just mentioned, you believe in the power of "continuous innovation" and "perseverance," making "continuous innovation" your creed for the next decade. I have also seen you move from one company to another, from one industry to another. My question is: in your view, which path is more important, continuously refining a startup into a "century-old enterprise" or continuously experimenting and innovating across different industries? How do you balance these two choices? Which one do you identify with more?

Sun Yu Chen: I would like to respond to this question because it is indeed very good. Jack Ma shared a deeply memorable case during a lecture at Hupan University: when he went to Japan, he found that many companies there were over a hundred years old but very small in scale. He and Son Masayoshi went into a store, bought something, and chatted with the store manager only to find out that the store had already been passed down to the fourth or fifth generation and the store size was less than 10 square meters, very compact, with a sign outside saying "120th Anniversary of the Store." I remember this incident very clearly.

I think this reflects the differences in the inherent "genes" of different countries and nationalities. Japan and Germany are particularly prone to having these "small and enduring" century-old shops because they highly value the spirit of craftsmanship and are willing to excel in one thing over the long term. I'm not judging whether it's good or bad, but this is their cultural orientation.

As a fun analogy: why is McDonald's successful? Because it made the hamburger "taste bad enough," or more precisely, remained at a consistent 60 out of 100. If we consider bad taste as 0 and the ultimate taste as 100, there are many people in the world who can make an 85 or even 100-point hamburger. The kind of pursuit that artisans in Japan and Germany seek is a "10,000-point" hamburger, where taking a bite makes your soul transcend and even a Michelin three-star rating falls short. However, the problem is that this level of craftsmanship is extremely difficult to learn and pass on, with very stringent requirements for chefs, ingredients, and cooking conditions. It is often passed down through generations and is challenging to mass-produce. Perhaps only a few are made in a year, and only a few people worldwide can taste it, making it difficult to turn it into a big business. Even if a hamburger sells for 100,000 yuan, the annual revenue is only 500,000 yuan.

The reason McDonald's emerged successful is because it could "standardize at 60 points," with virtually no barriers for people and no strict requirements for materials. Raw materials can be locally sourced globally, and in China, it can be made using Chinese ingredients. Like myself, Sun Yu Chen, after training at McDonald's for a week, can start working, with no specific requirements for materials, ingredients, cooking conditions, or location. Anyone can follow the process and produce the same hamburger. McDonald's followed this path: making the process replicable so that people worldwide can quickly produce a 60-point burger, allowing it to dominate globally.

This also corresponds to the strengths of China and the United States: we excel at making things "just enough, accessible, and replicable," allowing consumers to enjoy qualified products at a lower cost. For example, in the past, if a button was made by Japanese or German craftsmen, the quality would be extremely high, but so would the price. However, when made by Chinese craftsmen, the standard is "just enough," leading to a significant price reduction, which is of course beneficial to consumers. On the other hand, Germany and Japan excel in making things "ultimate and durable." These two paths, these two "genes," each play a role in global division of labor.

As for my choice, I would prefer to achieve scale, to make things big, so that everyone can use them, rather than striving to make the world's best.

13. What advice would you give to young entrepreneurs now?

Justin Sun: A startup company is often willing to pay the highest premium to you. Just like Joe Tsai, who also taught us at Hupan University, he is very kind and good at telling jokes. When we listened to his lectures at Hupan University, there was constant laughter.

He used to work as a lawyer at a top U.S. law firm, earning a high salary of over one hundred thousand US dollars per year, but he was just a "senior employee." After joining Alibaba, he quickly became the second most important person after Jack Ma. For this, he did give up the opportunity to become a well-known lawyer in the United States; at that time when he joined Alibaba, his first month's salary was only 500 Chinese yuan. But in the end, when Alibaba went public, Joe Tsai, along with Jack Ma and his wife, established a foundation and frequently donated billions of US dollars. His personal wealth has returned approximately to around 4-5 billion US dollars.

Therefore, if you are outstanding enough, it is worth joining a startup company. You are already a "big Buddha," and small temples will naturally try their best to worship you; once successful, the extraordinary returns you receive are often not achievable in established fields.

With that said, I have two pieces of advice: Firstly, as a job seeker, try to join a company in the "period of rule-making"; secondly, as an entrepreneur, try to choose a track where the "rules are still being formed," so that small companies have the opportunity to take advantage of existing loopholes. I often sigh to myself: I was born a few years too late. If I were born in 1985, my net worth might already be 10 billion US dollars now, haha. Don't laugh, this might not necessarily be a joke. If I had started a business five years earlier, right in the wave of the 2009 mobile internet, maybe I would have gone even further.

In reality, I started my business in 2012. Considering myself among the post-90s generation, I wasn't late, but by that time, the era of mobile internet was already at its end. If I had entered the scene three years earlier, riding on the wave, with my self-perceived intelligence, perhaps my achievements would have been higher. This is also the core reason why I repeatedly emphasize in the program that "entrepreneurship should be done early." Success is certainly related to ability, but the decisive factor is often whether you catch a good time. Therefore, I advise everyone to "stay on the scene and keep trying," your good time will always come.

Someone who has used the accompanying app I made might say: Yuchen, your app might be quite inferior to Momo, why didn't you achieve the same level as Momo? One important reason is: when I started my business, the landscape of China's mobile internet was essentially stable. In Momo's early days, they utilized the new capability of "geographical location" on the mobile end, riding the wave of "scarce app supply" to accumulate a massive user base at very low cost. In 2009, the nascent mobile internet era was such that almost anything could succeed; whereas today's entrepreneurs often chase trends and if they miss, they can only wait for the next wave.

Therefore, it is best for a company's development to focus on fields during the "rule-making period" to have room to maneuver; if you obediently stay in the established "rule-set" of the industry chain, the upward mobility is often very limited.

My second point: the true wealth accumulation path is "non-linear." The familiar path to the middle class is predefined – hard work → high scores → good university → good job, this is linear. However, true wealth transition is exponential, disruptive, and accompanied by a restructuring of rules. No one in the world has ever become wealthy just by receiving a wage day after day and year after year.

On a daily basis, you may encounter a "novice" asking a very "linear" question: I have a monthly salary of 5000, an annual salary of 60,000, don't I need to work for 100 years to earn 6 million? This is typical linear thinking. Indeed, if you rely solely on saving wages, it will take 100 years; but the wealth accumulation path is not linear, it is exponential and punctuated.

What does this mean? Let's take the example of the app I made. At the beginning, we were losing one to two million every month, almost losing everything. But when we seized an opportunity, got the key point right, we could immediately earn four to five million in a month. Some may ask: How long did it take to go from losing 1 million a month to earning four to five million a month? Did it take a long time, like ten years? The answer is very simple: two weeks. It really took just two weeks to turn losses into profits.

This example illustrates that the rhythm of making money is not "daily earnings × 365 = annual earnings", multiplied by several years. Anyone with experience in entrepreneurship or business knows: in the early stages, there is often a loss; once you get the right track, strategy, and timing, there will be a rapid turnaround. Of course, you may have enjoyed quite a good time, and then suddenly the industry undergoes a major change, and just like that, you're back on the losing side. Wealth is fundamentally a process of "dynamic swings and leaps", not a straight linear growth.

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