The real watershed is not the bull and bear markets, but rather that 'rules no longer rely on human explanation.'
Many people divide the market into bull markets and bear markets.
But I increasingly feel that the more important watershed is actually another matter:
Are the rules still relying on human explanation?
As long as the rules still need to be explained, there will definitely be a space for games.
You think it's fair, but it's really just that no one has acted temporarily;
You think it's transparent, but it really just hasn't been your turn to doubt;
You think it's certain, but it actually just hasn't encountered extreme situations.
Once the environment changes, these things will be exposed.
The most typical is distribution and verification.
Distributing money seems the simplest, but historically, almost all large-scale distributions have encountered problems.
Either qualification disputes, execution deviations, or time adjustments.
Why?
Because as long as there is still a 'human' judgment in the middle, there will definitely be variables.
So true progress is not about making the rules more complex, but about removing the 'interpretation rights'.
Make the system do only one thing:
Verify the conditions, and then execute the results.
There are no 'discretionary handling', no 'special circumstances', and no 'temporary adjustments'.
Many people may feel that this kind of system is too rigid.
But it is precisely this rigidity that is the prerequisite for large-scale collaboration.
Because when there are enough participants, human nature is uncontrollable,
Only the rules must be controllable.
If you look at many systems that are actually running, they all have one thing in common:
Users may not trust developers, but they must trust the rules.
This is the underlying trust.
So now when I look at projects, I am no longer very concerned about what story they tell.
I care more about one thing:
If all people are removed, can this system still run by itself?
If the answer is yes, then this thing at least has long-term value.
If the answer is no, then it is essentially a structure that needs constant human maintenance.
In the short term, it may be very lively, but it is difficult to stabilize in the long term.
The market will periodically shuffle, but once the rules are upgraded, they are irreversible.
What really remains in the future may not necessarily be the best storytellers.
Rather, it is the earliest group that handed over the 'interpretation rights' to the code.