I have seen a classic case. There was a guy who initially focused on TIA and told everyone that this thing could rival ETH in the future, aiming for a market capitalization of hundreds of billions, so he first invested 500,000. What happened next? The price kept falling, and he actually kept buying more as it dropped, adding another 500,000 to lower his costs.

Yesterday during the chat, I noticed the account numbers were quite striking — 1 million turned into 50,000. When I asked if he would cut losses, he smiled bitterly: "What’s the point of cutting losses now? Let’s just lie flat and wait for a miracle." I could feel the unwillingness in his tone even through the screen.

Such stories are actually not uncommon in the crypto space. When project teams make grand promises, the visions on the PPT look quite beautiful, talking about the next-generation public chain revolution and an imminent ecological explosion. It is only after investing real money that one realizes the market does not look at PPTs, but at actual implementation and the flow of funds. The recent operation of TIA can be regarded as a textbook-level demonstration of risk—don’t just listen to stories and go all in; no matter how advanced the technology is, without sustained market consensus, it will also be educated by reality.

The cryptocurrency market has never lacked wealth creation myths, but more often there are silent stories of these numbers on paper going to zero.