Why may a logic become unreliable after being recognized by everyone! When I first start trading, my favorite thing to look for is "certainty": policy support, institutional entry, track burst, and preferably a consensus across the entire network. Everyone watching too much seems to indicate that they are on the right side. Later on, I realized that what I gained from trading was not that my viewpoint was correct, but that the price did not fully reflect that viewpoint. I once chased a popular track. The logic is indeed correct. The user growth, financing background, and ecological narrative are all good, and the research report clearly states the positive news. However, by the time I bought, the early funds had already earned several times, with high funding rates and crowded contract positions. Every subsequent positive news could only bring short-term gains. The project did not immediately deteriorate, but the price began to decline because what the market lacked was not reasons, but buyers who were later than me and willing to offer higher prices. Consensus itself is not a risk, overpricing is. To judge opportunities, we cannot only ask whether the logic is correct, but also how many people have already believed, how much capital has entered the market, and if the good news is realized, who will continue to buy? The best opportunity is often not the complete lack of consensus, but rather the fact that the situation is improving while the price remains skeptical. By the time everyone can smoothly retell the same story, trading may have shifted from discovering value to competing for the last chair. Remember: good logic does not equal good price; When everyone knows the correct answer, what really needs to be calculated is how many buying orders have not yet entered the market.