Great Universe: Simple, Extreme, All-in = Billionaire
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Great Universe: Simple, Extreme, All-in = Billionaire
Getting simple things right creates enormous long-term value.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Dayu
Statistics show that 2 million people in China have assets exceeding 100 million yuan, which is a ratio of 14 per 10,000. So when I say becoming one in a thousand, it's actually quite conservative—most people can achieve this without extraordinary luck, but certainly only after walking steadily in the right direction for a long time.
In this journey, mindset frameworks are crucial—they determine how you allocate your time: who you meet, what you do, and what problems you think about. Without a solid framework, even if you accidentally reach the top 0.01%, you're likely to lose it quickly. With a good framework, thanks to compounding effects, that 0.01% can gradually grow into 0.001%, then 0.0001%.
Why am I writing this now? Simply because I often reflect on things deeply, and I hate the idea of forgetting them later. So I record them down, so that years from now I can look back and say, "That was pretty silly," which would be just fine.
1. Simplicity
I place this first because this principle is extremely important, yet very hard to practice.
To me, simplicity means returning to the essence of things and filtering out all noise—similar to Elon Musk’s concept of first principles thinking. It applies broadly. Let me illustrate with a few examples:
For instance,
A couple of days ago, someone asked me curiously why our team sees me as an undisputed top-tier Twitter influencer, and how I managed to get there so quickly. What were my methods or secrets?
I said that even when I first joined Twitter with only a small following, I told friends I would become the biggest voice online—not because I thought I was brilliant or had exceptional investing skills (by today’s standards, my investment abilities back then were actually quite poor).
But I believed in the power of simple logic, such as:
My main purpose in posting is to provide value to others, so I try to write only about things that are genuinely useful (though objectively limited by my skill level, many posts may be wrong or outdated).
Be authentic. While the internet has people with various biases and misconceptions, I believe that if I stay true over time, most people will eventually recognize it.
People come to crypto to make money, so I must continuously improve my own investment capabilities. Only then does the combination of providing value and being genuine matter; otherwise, no amount of effort is meaningful.
Doing simple things right creates massive long-term value!
From this case, we see that if you ask 100 people how to succeed on Twitter, you could generate 100 academic papers—but most advice focuses on tactics. Simplicity means going back to fundamentals. In fact, all my experience above can be distilled into six words: useful, sincere, self-improving.
All six are essential; missing any one makes success unsustainable. With these six, I believe that given enough time and willingness, I could reach any height.
Of course, there's no need to. There's a saying: What is the Way of Heaven? It's understanding that “a tall tree attracts the wind.” Huang Zheng didn’t pursue being the richest man; wise people step aside early—these are all principles great minds follow.
This article mainly discusses human ways—the path of personal effort. As for the Way of Heaven, my understanding remains shallow—I’ve only touched upon its surface.
How can simplicity apply in daily life? Here are some basic principles I follow:
For example, befriend good people. "Good" here is comprehensive—definitions vary, but it definitely shouldn't be based on mutual exploitation. Relationships driven solely by benefit will fade once benefits disappear, and may even bring future harm.
I define "good" as qualities like kindness, integrity, and mutual benefit—these are foundational. On top of that, shared goals or values allow friendship to form.
For example, draw clear boundaries with bad people—don’t drag things out. If you don’t like someone, just don’t force it. Who are bad people? Dishonest ones, those who betray friends, lack integrity—these are easy to spot. But there are subtler cases—people not necessarily “bad,” but whose mindset clashes with yours. Don’t force compatibility due to personality, style, or behavior differences.
There’s a long gap between understanding these principles and truly living them—but over time, practicing them consistently makes you stronger.
The same applies online. Earlier, I used to explain myself publicly due to my belief in “authenticity.” Now I realize I hadn’t grasped some underlying simple truths:
Explanation is always unnecessary and ineffective;
There will always be people who don’t accept or like you;
Time reveals truth—just keep doing the right thing, and eventually everything becomes clear. No need to explain.
After realizing these hidden rules, I now categorize instead of explaining—blocking instantly, ignoring differing opinions.
Perhaps respecting everyone’s fate is also part of the Way of Heaven—Heaven speaks not, nor shows emotion.
Business management should also be simple.
Degrees, backgrounds, titles, and experience often complicate simple matters, distracting us from focusing on core issues.
For example:
In his 2009 shareholder letter, Buffett said he sleeps soundly every night because:
We generally let our numerous subsidiaries operate independently—we don’t engage in any form of oversight or surveillance.
This means we may detect managerial issues late, and occasionally disagree with their operational or capital allocation decisions.
Yet, most of our managers use the autonomy we grant wisely, maintaining a rare, shareholder-oriented attitude uncommon in large organizations.
We’d rather bear the tangible costs of a few bad decisions than suffer the immense intangible costs caused by bureaucratic inertia—slow or no decision-making.
In this example, we see Buffett’s extreme simplicity in business management—he selects the smartest people to run businesses. Reading more of his letters, you’ll find he consistently chooses reliable individuals aligned with company values and gives them full authority.
In 2009, when he wrote this, he oversaw 257,000 employees across 50+ companies—yet his daily routine remained focused on learning, thinking, and research.
He said: “I will never allow Berkshire to become some giant filled with committees, budget reports, and multiple layers of management.”
Over a decade later, Berkshire entered the trillion-dollar club.
One manager recalled a moment vividly: after making a decision that led to hundreds of millions in losses, he nervously reported to Buffett—only to hear a simple reply: “We all make mistakes.”
In managing businesses, step one is hiring the right people; step two is delegation. Without the right hire, nothing else matters. Even with the right person, improper delegation can lead to disaster—like amateurs managing experts, or strong players limiting each other—causing internal friction and conflict.
The reason Buffett refuses to let Berkshire become “a giant full of committees, reports, and layered management” is simple: such structures almost guarantee organizational chaos.
2. Excellence (Extreme)
Excellence decides victory: deliver极致 user experience, and people will praise your company; conduct极致 investment research, and you’ll earn big; anything less than极致 equals nothing done.
Take the earlier example—on Twitter, knowing I needed to provide value, I still had to persist long-term before results showed. (Of course, later I built private groups, and Twitter became more like Moments—that’s understandable.)
Same goes for investing, product development, and building companies.
Recently, I realized excellence inherently involves focus—concentrating on one thing until it’s done well. Too much dispersion leads to mediocrity across the board.
“Excellence” is an abstract term, but it serves today’s first and third principles:极致 simplicity and极致 concentration (heavy betting). This point is important though somewhat abstract, but luckily simple enough—remember the two characters “极致,” and you’ll naturally deepen your understanding through use.
3. Heavy Betting
My well-known investment system is called: “See clearly + Bet heavily,” which has evolved through many versions. Now, I no longer track version upgrades—partly because changes happen too fast, partly because they’re integrated into daily internal discussions.
Looking back, my understanding and application of this system has greatly evolved since its inception.
In simple terms:
First, diversified investing is meaningless—and is speculation.
This statement might seem overly assertive, but it doesn’t oppose holding several positions—it opposes diversification purely for risk reduction.
Risk depends entirely on how accurately you assess opportunities. Of course, beginners often misjudge—even I fell into major traps, though at the time I felt certain.
So, for newcomers, diversifying isn’t wrong per se—but mentally, understand that “see clearly + bet heavily” is the real key.
Does “seeing clearly” in crypto include timing entry? Previously I wasn’t sure, but now I am—it does.
A self-test criterion: You’ve researched an asset thoroughly (gathered all information within your capability), willing to allocate 20% or more of your portfolio, unfazed by short-term price swings (viewing them as normal and manageable), and have a rough sense of potential outcomes over a vague future timeframe—then you can consider yourself having “seen clearly.”
"Seeing clearly" is always subjective and temporary—you must understand this. We aren’t fortune tellers or prophets—we make the best possible decision under current knowledge, while staying humble toward market changes.
The biggest danger in “seeing clearly” is blindly copying others’ convictions or ignoring market shifts.
Second, how do we define极致 heavy betting?
My approach to heavy betting has gone through several stages:
1) All-in within acceptable loss range. For example, with X2Y2, I not only went all-in myself, but had a friend mortgage his house to give me funds. In hindsight, this was clearly wrong—but years ago, my skill level was far lower, yet my courage greater.
“Acceptable loss” meant: I calculated whether I could recover financially even if I lost everything—whether I could repay my friend. I knew I could, though it’d be tough.
So I called it “all-in within acceptable loss”—and it involved betting everything on a single project.
In hindsight, NFTs completely collapsed—unimaginable at the time; project teams prioritized cashing out—back then I was naive, now I understand.
PS: I’m a reliable person—after cutting losses, I repaid my friend’s loan as soon as possible, plus a generous extra sum as appreciation—he was thrilled, and so was I.
2) Heavy betting with risk control.
After X2Y2, I became more cautious. Even for excellent opportunities, I’d only use part of my funds—say, three months’ income or a portion of profits.
But reading accounts of legendary figures, I noticed many iconic investors succeeded precisely through the kind of aggressive all-ins I described earlier—left and right all-ins.
Like Liu Qiangdong (Richard Liu).
Liu’s first bucket of money from打工 was over 200,000 RMB. He went all-in opening a restaurant aiming for national chain expansion—but lost it all in half a year. He walked away, leaving the shop to corrupt staff—a quick way to cut ties with unreliable people.
Later, he did CD and computer assembly business. Due to integrity, it grew well—until SARS hit, wiping out his business. Unable to afford rent, he started selling computers on forums—and sales were surprisingly good. Liu saw huge potential—better than physical stores. Everyone opposed him, as offline stores were highly profitable and successful.
So Liu went all-in again: “Running both won’t work. I’m shutting down physical stores and going all-in on online sales. Those who want to stay, stay. Those who leave, get compensated fairly.”
And he won again—online sales grew rapidly, leading to an 18 million RMB investment to launch JD.com.
JD initially sold only electronics. But Liu realized he needed a full-category mall—so again, all-in.
This time investors strongly objected: Just follow Egg.com’s model, go public later, valuation could easily multiply 100x—investors could exit profitably.
Liu refused. He said: “Either follow me into full-category, or I’ll compensate you fully with my equity if it fails. I’ll walk away bankrupt, but you won’t lose big.”
He bet right.
Repeated wins reinforced his confidence, making him bolder in all-ins. When JD’s logistics kept getting stolen and service sucked, he decided to build his own warehouses and delivery teams—extremely capital-intensive, burning through all JD’s profits. Investors wanted to pull out, pushing JD to the brink of bankruptcy—luckily, another big investor stepped in and saved it.
Afterward, JD surged ahead, while Egg.com and others collapsed.
Today’s rise of Pinduoduo and Liu expanding overseas are beyond our scope here.
From Liu Qiangdong, and other investing/entrepreneurial legends I know, I see consistent extreme bets—making me reflect: My own heavy betting has been too timid. Reviewing past opportunities, I acted too lightly.
Thus began stage three.
3)极致 heavy betting.
This seems similar to stage one, but the underlying logic differs. Stage one was akin to blind all-in; stage three is equally extreme but far more deliberate. The distinction is subtle—I won’t bother detailing it further.
In this phase, I’ve made several strong moves, but also stepped into a major pit—perhaps inevitable in hindsight.
Currently, my understanding of heavy betting has reached a new level—heavy, accurate, fast.
Risk warning: Heavy betting without accuracy leads to disaster.
Do you have the ability to “see clearly”? Judge using common sense:
Where does your insight stand among peers?
Is your investment return aligned with your perceived level of understanding?
Is the mismatch temporary, or are you deluding yourself?
Fundamentally, everyone thinks before investing—but such thinking is inevitably filled with bias and error. Only through common sense can we self-reflect: The less you truly know, the less you succeed, the bigger your mistakes.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@BTCdayu
