在昨天的文章中，我表達了以下觀點：

在加密生態系統投資中，以實現長期，連續和穩定的回報

Yesterday, I shared an optimistic outlook on crypto ecosystem investments, highlighting the importance of projects that can consistently generate long-term, continuous, and stable cash flow.

昨天，我對加密生態系統投資有了樂觀的看法，強調了能夠始終產生長期，連續和穩定的現金流量的項目的重要性。

This perspective sparked interesting reactions, leading me to further elaborate on this crucial aspect of crypto investing.

這種觀點引發了有趣的反應，這使我進一步闡述了加密投資的這一關鍵方面。

Some investors prefer focusing solely on Bitcoin, an approach that certainly minimizes the need for analyzing cash flow.

一些投資者更喜歡專注於比特幣，這種方法當然可以最大程度地減少分析現金流的需求。

However, I personally prefer a more diversified investment strategy, much like comparing investing in gold to investing in stocks or equity.

但是，我個人更喜歡一種更加多元化的投資策略，就像將黃金投資與投資股票或股權進行比較。

While both can be viable, I believe a portfolio can benefit from a mix of investment classes.

儘管兩者都可以可行，但我相信投資組合可以從投資班級中受益。

My primary energy and attention will be directed towards projects capable of yielding continuous returns.

我的主要能量和關注將指向能夠產生連續回報的項目。

In contrast, investing in Bitcoin requires minimal thought or time, and one could even hold it for a lifetime without management.

相比之下，投資比特幣需要最少的思考或時間，甚至可以在沒有管理層的情況下將其持續一生。

This difference in maintenance and attention spans is a significant factor in my preference for projects with ongoing revenue streams.

維護和注意力跨度的這種差異是我偏愛持續收入來源的項目的重要因素。

In the words of Munger and Duan Yongping, they often say that when looking at something, it is often difficult for us to judge what is good or what is right, but conversely, it is relatively easy for us to judge what is bad or what is wrong.

用芒格（Munger）和杜恩（Duan Yongping）的話說，他們經常說，當看某物時，我們通常很難判斷什麼是好是什麼，但是相反，我們相對容易判斷什麼是壞事或錯。

This method can also be used to evaluate crypto projects.

此方法也可以用於評估加密項目。

In the crypto ecosystem, we may find it difficult to determine what a project with long-term, continuous, and stable cash flow looks like, but we can see what a project would look like if it lacks long-term, continuous, and stable cash flow.

在加密生態系統中，我們可能會發現很難確定一個長期，連續且穩定的現金流量的項目，但是如果該項目缺乏長期，連續和穩定的現金流，我們可以看到一個項目的樣子。

Take Ethereum as an example. In this market cycle, without a strong new ecosystem emerging, and the existing ecosystem failing to generate sufficiently strong and sustainable returns, Ethereum's price has continued to languish. Even when there is a brief surge, it is purely driven by sentiment, lasting for a short time and lacking strength.

以以太坊為例。在這個市場週期中，沒有強大的新生態系統出現，現有的生態系統未能產生足夠的強大和可持續的回報，以太坊的價格繼續努力。即使有短暫的激增，它純粹是由情緒驅動的，持續了很短的時間，缺乏力量。

As for Solana, recently, as the sentiment around meme coins gradually fades and no other ecosystems can take over to generate sufficiently strong returns and appeal, its price has also begun to decline.

至於索拉納（Solana），最近，隨著模因硬幣的情緒逐漸消失，沒有其他生態系統可以接管獲得足夠強大的回報和吸引力，其價格也開始下降。

The main chain is like this, and layer two expansions also struggle to stand alone: Ethereum's once-popular layer two expansion, Scroll, received a total of $1.8 billion in venture capital during its funding phase, but now its token's FDV market cap is less than $400 million.

主鏈就是這樣，第二層的擴展也很難獨自一人：以太坊曾經受歡迎的第二層擴展，滾動，在其融資階段獲得了18億美元的風險投資，但現在其代幣的FDV市值不到4億美元。

There are many reasons for their price decline, but in my view, they can ultimately be attributed to one point: the lack of long-term, continuous, and stable ecological returns, which leads to the project tokens' prices either languishing continuously or experiencing only moments of glory.

其價格下降的原因有很多，但我認為，他們最終可以歸因於一個點：缺乏長期，連續且穩定的生態回報，這導致該項目的價格使人的價格持續不斷或僅體驗到榮耀的時刻。

I remember that in a previous article, I once wrote about analyzing some well-known DeFi projects today using traditional publicly listed company analysis methods, such as AAVE, whose token prices are significantly overvalued.

我記得在上一篇文章中，我曾經寫過有關使用傳統公開列出的公司分析方法（例如AAVE）分析一些著名的Defi項目的文章，例如AAVE，其代幣價格大大被高估了。

At that time, some believed that crypto projects should have such high valuations and that traditional analysis methods do not apply to crypto projects.

當時，一些人認為加密項目應該具有如此高的估值，並且傳統的分析方法不適用於加密項目。

In fact, I think this is self-deception; analysis methods are not defined by whether they are traditional or not; they should be the same in any field and should return to simple common sense: Can it generate value? Can it produce continuous cash flow?

實際上，我認為這是自欺欺人的。分析方法不是由傳統的定義。它們在任何領域都應相同，應該返回簡單的常識：它可以產生價值嗎？它可以產生連續的現金流嗎？

If investors continue to deceive themselves, believing that emotional value can replace the continuous cash flow value brought by real services and products when evaluating a project token, such "investments" will eventually fall into a pit. Once the tide recedes, they will inevitably be exposed.

如果投資者繼續欺騙自己，認為情感價值可以替代評估代幣項目時，實際服務和產品帶來的持續現金流價值，這種“投資”最終將落入一個坑中。一旦潮汐退縮，它們將不可避免地暴露出來。

Let’s look at these well-known DeFi projects; which of their token prices has reached the historical peak set several years ago? This is the most genuine response from the market.

讓我們看一下這些著名的Defi項目；幾年前，他們的哪個代幣價格已達到歷史峰值？這是市場中最真實的回應。

Now, looking back at these projects, from their inception to now, unless one can accurately judge the ups and downs of emotional value and precisely achieve high selling and low buying, otherwise, they will basically incur losses.

現在，回顧這些項目從成立到現在，除非人們可以準確地判斷情感價值的起伏，並精確地實現高銷售和低購買，否則，它們基本上會蒙受損失。

Of course, if these projects find strong profit growth points in the future and can generate real cash flow like Nvidia or Apple, then not only can their token prices reach new highs, but creating miracles is also possible.

當然，如果這些項目在未來找到強大的利潤增長點並可以產生像Nvidia或Apple這樣的真實現金流，那麼它們的代幣價格不僅可以達到新的高點，而且還可以創造奇蹟。

However, some projects have already begun to recognize this common-sense issue and are trying various methods to solve it.

但是，一些項目已經開始認識到這個常識性問題，並正在嘗試各種方法來解決它。

The earlier movers were MakerDAO, and recently AAVE has been quite active.

較早的搬家是Makerdao，最近AAVE非常活躍。

They are doing the same thing: trying to expand their business into the RWA field, striving to substantively increase revenue and generate more value.

他們正在做同樣的事情：試圖將業務擴展到RWA領域，努力大大增加收入並產生更多的價值。

Whether their expansion into the RWA field is appropriate and whether their various practices in this process are reasonable is set aside for now.

現在，它們是否適當地擴展RWA領域，以及在此過程中合理的各種實踐是否暫時擱置。

But their direction of effort is definitely correct.

但是他們的努力方向絕對是正確的。

In Duan Yongping's words, they are "doing the right thing." As for whether they are "doing things right," that remains to be seen.

用Duan Yonging的話來說，他們“做正確的事”。至於他們是否“做正確的事”，還有待觀察。

But I believe that as long as they persist in "doing the right thing," this exploration is valuable.

但是我相信，只要他們堅持“做正確的事”，這種探索都是有價值的。

The project parties are returning to common sense, and as investors, we should also return to common

項目各方正在恢復常識，作為投資者，我們還應該返回共同