At the end of the article the day before yesterday, there was a comment like this:

“It is very emotional, but I found a bug. Without data and case support, this article can be used everywhere.”

The comment about “without data and case support” reminded me of the famous manifesto “On Protracted War” published by Chairman Mao Zedong in 1938.

What situation was the country facing at that time, which was in ruins?

The Northeast had already fallen for more than six years, becoming the puppet Manchukuo under complete Japanese colonization.

Most of North China had already been eroded by Japan.

Everyone could see that Japan's next step was to continue invading Central and South China, thereby annexing the whole country.

At that time, when Chairman Mao Zedong set pen to paper to contemplate “On Protracted War,” what data could he think of to support his belief that China would inevitably win?

Was it the Japanese Navy, which had already possessed two large aircraft carriers and three medium-sized aircraft carriers, against the National Revolutionary Army Navy, which only had four cruisers?

Was it the Japanese Air Force, which had already possessed 2,700 fighter planes and the capacity to produce a thousand aircraft annually, against the National Revolutionary Army Air Force, which had less than 400 fighter planes and had zero production capacity?

Or was it the mechanized Japanese Army against the National Revolutionary Army, which basically relied on walking or mule transportation?

None of these would do.

What cases could he think of to support his belief that China would inevitably win?

He could only cite historical events like the “Battle of Feishui,” the modern “Russian Civil War,” as well as the recently occurred “Battle of Tai'erzhuang” and the “Battle of Shanghai.”

But to be honest, do these cases really have that much persuasive power?

In reality, faced with the militarism of Japan at that time and the comparison of national conditions and military strength between China and Japan, it was difficult to find persuasive data and referable cases.

If there were enough data and cases to support the inevitability of China's victory, the Japanese military wouldn't have dared to launch a full-scale invasion of China at all.

So why could Chairman Mao Zedong issue such a manifesto, firmly believing in China's victory?

I believe it was because of his faith and an intuition that transcended history, which allowed him to still see a bright future and a certain victory at the most painful and lowest ebb of the entire nation.

Therefore, that article does not lose its luster simply due to a lack of persuasive data and referable cases; instead, the faith and values that seep through the words, along with the logic and strategy revolving around these beliefs and values, provided all readers with genuine motivation and strong confidence.

Faith and values are the only forces that allow a person to see the light through darkness and fog when all data and past experiences have become ineffective.

Faith and values have always been the first criterion I consider when deciding major directions and making significant choices, and they are the key to my continued belief in this ecology and its future even when many people are in despair.

Jack Ma said (in essence): the vast majority of people believe because they see, while only a few can see because they believe.

In the crypto ecology, I resemble the latter more.

Why can “belief” come before “seeing”?

Because faith and values are at work.

Currently, DeFi is facing a situation filled with fog and approaching darkness, but I firmly believe in it, so I still see its future as bright.

If I had to mention an even more persuasive counterexample of a referable case:

If 16 years ago, American programmer Laszlo Hanyecz had found compelling data and referable cases that convinced him Bitcoin could rise to $100,000 each, he certainly would not have used 10,000 Bitcoins to buy two pizzas.

The viewpoint that “this article can be applied everywhere” misses a fundamental element: it overlooks the fundamental premise of values.

Without values as a premise, that article cannot be casually applied in other contexts.

I wrote this in that article:

“But the good thing about DeFi is that the platform carrying it, Ethereum, is an open and permissionless platform.”

This is the fundamental premise that makes me optimistic about the prospects of DeFi.

Without this major premise, the logic of that article would go wrong when applied to other scenarios and ecosystems.

For example, applying my article to CEX would be absurd. They are all centralized controlled ecosystems, how could they possibly grow into a DeFi with promising future?

Moreover, applying my article to other Layer 1 public chains would also be equally absurd. Because I expressed my opinion in yesterday's article: many Layer 1 public chains, in essence, are like EOS, which appears to wear a “blockchain” guise but is fundamentally centralized controlled platforms. Such platforms could not possibly grow into a promising future for DeFi.

Does this mean that data and cases are not important?

Of course not.

Faith and values are used to select major directions, and once that is established, I will look at data and cases for specific actions and implementations.

For instance, according to my faith and values, I would not invest in tokens of other Layer 1 smart contract blockchains; I would only lock onto Ethereum. That is using faith and values to choose a major direction.

But does choosing Ethereum mean buying immediately?

Certainly not.

For example, during the last difficult bull market, I would not buy Ethereum when it approached $5,000.

Why?

Because the data and cases indicated that Ethereum at that price did not match its value at that time.

Therefore, in my investment approach, faith and values come first, while data and cases come second.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。