Why is it that the strongest consensus sectors often end up trapping the most people? EOS, FIL, PEPE, BOME, and so on—too many to count. When I first entered the crypto space, I always thought the stronger the consensus, the higher the certainty. Everyone was talking about public chains, AI, RWA, or some 'cycle king.' Institutional reports were unanimously bullish, and KOLs kept raising their target prices higher and higher. I thought buying in was just a matter of time before making money. Later, I realized that consensus itself isn’t wrong—the problem is that the price has already factored in the next few years in advance. A story goes from being researched by a few people to being known by the entire market. Early investors have already made dozens of times in profit. The 'certainty' that latecomers hear about is often just the liquidity needed by those holding the earlier positions. The project may still be excellent, and the ecosystem might continue to grow, but if the buy-in price is too high, any slowdown in growth, token unlocks, or capital rotation can trigger a valuation correction. In the last cycle, I also chased so-called core sectors. The logic held up even through the bear market, but the token prices still dropped 90%. That’s because the market doesn’t just reward good stories—it also looks at token costs, circulating supply, and new buying demand. So now, when I see something that everyone is unanimously bullish on, I don’t ask how great it is first. I ask: How many people haven’t bought in yet? Who’s going to take the next handoff? Remember: The best narrative isn’t always the best trade. When everyone believes in something, what’s truly scarce might no longer be consensus, but the funds to take over the bag.