The stock market, especially the American and Korean stock markets closely related to the AI sector, has always been a hot topic of public interest. Recently, both markets have experienced significant fluctuations.

In particular, the Korean stock market has seen multiple circuit breakers recently.

In this situation, news has emerged recently:

The Korean public, especially many who have gone into heavy leverage, has suffered tremendous losses during these repeated crashes, even leading to catastrophic personal injury incidents.

The public and media have directed their anger towards the Korean regulatory authorities, accusing them of hastily approving high-risk stock leverage products without fully assessing the market impact and risk management, which has led to the current disaster.

They demand compensation from the state.

Upon seeing this news, I recalled a reader once asked what I thought about the storage sector. At that time, my response was that I had indeed looked into it, but there were still some issues I couldn't see clearly or figure out, so I didn't participate.

However, I remember that since then, the storage sector, especially in the Korean stock market, has seen a surge in prices.

If this situation had occurred earlier, my mindset might have been unbalanced, but with my current mindset, that's no longer the case—it's not because the storage sector is now sharply dropping, but because I've gradually understood that a lack of proper understanding can mean that what seem like “opportunities” and “hot spots” can ultimately turn out to be traps.

Trying to seize an “opportunity” that one does not understand will likely end in tragedy.

Additionally, I thought of similar situations in the crypto ecosystem.

In fact, in the crypto ecosystem, many CEX offer leverage ratios that far exceed those of stock products in the Korean stock market. The crypto ecosystem has also experienced several crashes that were even more severe than those in the Korean stock market.

However, in my memory, I have not heard of cryptocurrency traders who suffered losses or liquidations during those crashes complaining that CEX launched high-leverage products without adequately assessing market impacts and risk management, which led to their losses.

Instead, there are often complaints from liquidated traders about CEX “pulling the plug,” “insider trading,” or “collusion between insiders and outsiders.”

Complaining about high product leverage questions the system; complaining about CEX’s “misconduct” questions character.

Questioning character is reasonable and should happen.

But questioning the system depends on the situation.

If the system itself is unfair, then it should be questioned.

However, in the current reports from Korea, I have not seen any news about insider trading at exchanges. Therefore, I tentatively believe that these high-leverage products are equally fair to all participants.

Since the system is the same, open, and transparent for everyone, those willing to participate in the system's game have no reason to complain.

If one feels the system is problematic but cannot change the system, then one should not participate or play.

However, if one knows that there are risks in the system and still wants to participate, and then cannot accept the outcomes, that is entirely their responsibility. Such people are purely gamblers, and they lack both the talent for gambling and the sense of responsibility. They cannot be unaware of the risks involved, yet they naively and greedily believe they can control the game, even thinking they are smarter than the “fools” in the market, so they recklessly dive in without regard for the risks.

But after losing, their first thought is not to find the person most responsible for it—namely, themselves—but to complain about fate.

Complaining about fate is useless; in the end, one must bear the consequences oneself.

How the situation surrounding the national compensation in Korea will develop is still unknown, but even if the state ultimately compensates and provides some subsidies to the investors, I think that little assistance is likely negligible compared to the losses incurred.

Moreover, there are some individuals who have already suffered personal injuries; even if they receive those subsidies, they cannot compensate for their permanent bodily harm.

Therefore, no matter what the reasons for the initial frenzy and greed were, once one decides to participate in this game, they must inevitably bear the consequences of the game.

All speculative markets are the same.

Writing about this Korean case is not to mock Korean investors but to serve as a warning to ourselves. Because in the crypto ecosystem, although the targets of complaints may differ during each crash, the number of gamblers who are greedy, lack gambling aptitude, yet want to take a gamble is certainly not small.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。