Why does a logic that everyone agrees on suddenly seem unreliable? When I first started trading, I loved chasing “certainty”: policy support, institutional entry, explosive sectors—ideally with unanimous consensus online. If everyone was bullish, it felt like I was on the right side. Later, I realized that trading profits don’t come from being right about the logic—they come from price not yet fully reflecting that logic. I once chased a hot sector. The logic was solid: user growth, strong funding, compelling ecosystem narrative—all clearly laid out in research reports. But by the time I bought in, early money had already made multiples, funding rates were sky-high, and open interest was overcrowded. Every new piece of good news only triggered a brief spike. The project didn’t suddenly get worse—but the price started falling. Why? Because the market didn’t lack reasons—it lacked buyers who were even later, willing to pay even higher prices. Consensus itself isn’t the risk; overpricing is. To judge an opportunity, don’t just ask: “Is the logic sound?” Ask: “How many people already believe it? How much capital has already entered? And if the利好 materializes—who’s left to buy?” The best opportunities aren’t those with zero consensus—they’re those where fundamentals are improving, but prices still carry doubt. Once everyone can recite the same story fluently, trading has shifted from discovering value to fighting over the last chair. Remember: A good logic doesn’t mean a good price. When the right answer is known by everyone, what truly matters is calculating how much buying power remains unfilled.