This is the "creation logic", which is easy to understand and widely recognized. You see, although he takes a thousand shares of resources, he contributes a thousand times more to society than an ordinary person, which seems reasonable. However, the logic of Bitcoin is more difficult to understand because it involves financial, prediction, consensus, risk, and shareholder logics. Given the long period of misdirection we had here, there is a natural misunderstanding and aversion among users towards "making money through judgment", so many people can't understand it and think it's unfair. In fact, it's quite simple. If there is something that everyone wants, regardless of what it is, even if it's just a painting for showing off and everyone wants to hang it in their own home, then those who first realize that "this thing might be desired by more people" and it turns out to be true as more people scramble for it, should this "awareness" be rewarded? Of course, because I also bear the risk of "it might end up being worthless if no one wants it". So it's simple. If more people want Bitcoin in the future, then everyone will invest their hard-earned money into this pool to participate in this game of wealth redistribution. And as people keep pouring their wealth into it, it will inevitably draw funds from other pools. Can you understand this? For example, if there are only the stock market and the cryptocurrency market in the world, as people continuously transfer their wealth and resource shares into the cryptocurrency market, the funds in the stock market will be drained, and won't the price of each stock plummet? Won't those who choose the wrong pool have their wealth taken away? If you don't play and just hold cash, you are essentially playing passively. Because in a continuously expanding large pool, if you don't compete, you lose; if you don't compete fast enough, you still lose. So is it a game of "friends cutting each other's throats"? Of course not. With new wealth constantly flowing in, how can it be called that? Bitcoin is a yardstick. The proportion of the number of your coins to the total amount determines how much fiat currency you can allocate within the market. It's the basis for you to allocate the fiat currency in the market. You might say it doesn't create new value. Then I have to start with explaining how much the "world's first and largest peer-to-peer trustless decentralized value transfer system" is worth. Just think about it. How much is the Internet worth? If you were an "original shareholder of the Internet" or an "original shareholder of SWIFT", how many times would your stocks have multiplied in these decades? Maybe you would already be the richest person in the world. You can choose not to buy Bitcoin or anything else. But remember, cash is also an asset. Essentially, using the proportion of your cash to the total social wealth to participate in the distribution of social resources is the same as using any other asset. What's the difference? Some assets will gain more and more consensus, and then other people's wealth will flow to you; while some assets will lose consensus, and then your wealth will flow to others. Whether anyone likes it or not, as long as you are a member of society, this game is mandatory and inescapable.