TrSoeThein

A-Zhe and the Sunk Cost Fallacy
A-Zhe is a patient investor.
Two years ago, on a friend’s recommendation, he bought a newly launched cryptocurrency called MoonDog.
At that time, the market was booming—everyone said the coin had “a strong team, solid technology, and bright prospects.”

He believed it. He invested $20,000 and even helped promote the project in chat groups, proud to call himself an early believer.
At first, everything went smoothly.
The price rose from $0.20 to $0.80. The future looked dazzling.
But soon, the market reversed, and the price plunged to $0.05.
The group went silent. The team stopped posting updates.
Even the once-active “OGs” quietly disappeared.
⸻
A-Zhe thought about selling to cut his losses, but then he told himself:
“I’ve already put in $20,000 and so much time following this coin. I can’t just give up now.”
He comforted himself with familiar lines:
“I haven’t lost until I sell.”
“Just wait—it’ll bounce back.”
So he held on.
When it dropped to $0.02, he bought more, telling himself:
“This isn’t a loss—it’s averaging down.”
When it fell to $0.01, he convinced himself again:
“Selling now would be a waste. I’ll wait until it recovers.”
And so he waited—an entire year.#CutLossesFast
⸻
During that time, he wasn’t really investing anymore.
He was defending his past self.
He wasn’t afraid of losing more money—he was afraid of admitting that the money was already gone.
That $20,000 wasn’t just capital. It represented his belief, his hope, and the time he had invested.
That is the Sunk Cost Fallacy in action.
⸻
In the crypto market, this happens everywhere.
Some investors know their project is dead but still say,
“I can’t leave now, or everything I did before would be for nothing.”
Others spend so much time researching a coin that they convince themselves,
“I’ve studied it this much—it would be a waste not to buy.”
Even project teams sometimes keep burning money on a failed direction, insisting,
“We’ve already invested so much. We can’t stop now.”
⸻
Eventually, A-Zhe came to terms with it.
Looking back, he sighed bitterly:
“What I truly lost wasn’t the money—it was the time I spent refusing to let go.”
Because the essence of a sunk cost isn’t about how much you’ve spent,
but how much longer you’re willing to pay for a mistake.
⸻
In the crypto world, sunk cost is a silent trap.
It’s not the market that locks people in—
it’s their own minds.#TIA🔔
{future}(TIAUSDT)
$TIA
English Translation
Origin: The “Rational Decision-Making” Assumption in Economics
The concept of sunk cost originated from classical economics.
As early as the late 19th century, economists such as Alfred Marshall proposed that:
“A rational decision-maker, when deciding whether to continue an investment, should consider only future costs and benefits, and ignore any past expenditures that cannot be recovered.”
In other words — sunk costs should be ignored.
But humans are not always rational.
That realization opened the door for psychology to step in.
⸻
From Economics to Psychology: 1970s–1980s
In the 1970s, psychologists began noticing that people often struggled to let go of what they had already invested.
Two key figures shaped this transformation:
Richard Thaler (1980s)
American behavioral economist, known as “the father of behavioral economics.”
In the 1980s, he systematically introduced the psychological view of the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Thaler observed that people continue to invest time or money simply because they’ve already invested too much — even when doing so is clearly irrational.
He later won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering work in this field.
Hal R. Arkes & Catherine Blumer (1985)
In 1985, they published the classic paper “The Psychology of Sunk Cost.”
Their experiments revealed that after spending money or effort, people are inclined to make worse decisions simply to avoid “wasting” prior investments.
This study became the psychological foundation of what we now call the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
⸻
In One Sentence
Economic version (rational assumption): Sunk costs should be ignored.
Psychological version (human reality): People often can’t ignore sunk costs.
And the person who brought this theory into public awareness and everyday language was Richard Thaler.
{future}(STXUSDT)
$STX
阿哲是一位很有耐心的投資者。
兩年前，他在朋友的推薦下，買了一種新推出的加密貨幣——叫「MoonDog」。
那時候市場正熱，大家都說這幣「有團隊、有技術、有前景」。
他也信了，買了兩萬美金，還常在群組裡幫忙宣傳，覺得自己是早期信徒。
一開始的確順風順水。幣價從 0.2 美元漲到 0.8，美好的未來似乎近在眼前。
但沒多久，市場反轉，幣價一路跌到 0.05。
群組安靜了，團隊不發公告，連當初最活躍的那幾個「老哥」都開始消失。

阿哲原本想賣掉止損，可是一想到自己：
「都已經砸了兩萬美金進去，還天天關注這幣，怎麼能現在放棄？」
他開始安慰自己：「反正沒賣就沒虧」、「再等等，總會反彈的」。
於是，他繼續留著。
幣價跌到 0.02，他又加倉，心裡告訴自己：「這是補倉，不是虧損。」
跌到 0.01，他再說服自己：「現在賣太可惜，我要等它回本。」
這一等，就是一年。
⸻
在這段時間裡，他不是真的在「投資」，而是在「捍衛過去的自己」。
他不是害怕再虧，而是害怕承認——那筆錢已經回不來了。#人性博弈
那兩萬美金不只是金錢，而是他過去的信念、希望、和投入的時間。
這就是典型的「沉沒成本效應（Sunk Cost Fallacy）」。
⸻
在加密市場裡，這種情況隨處可見。
有些人明知道項目已經沒希望了，還是堅持「我不能現在走，否則我前面就白玩了」。
有人花了太多時間研究一個幣，就覺得「既然都研究這麼多，不買太可惜」。
甚至有的項目團隊，眼看產品方向錯了，卻仍堅持燒錢開發，因為「我們已經投這麼多了，不能現在停」。
⸻
阿哲後來終於想通了。
他回頭看那筆投資，心裡苦笑：「我真正失去的，不是錢，而是太晚放手的時間。」
因為沉沒成本的本質，不在於「你花了多少」，而在於「你還願意為錯誤繼續付出多久」。
⸻
所以，在幣圈裡，沉沒成本常常讓人陷入一個危險的陷阱：
不是市場套牢了人，而是人自己套牢了心。#心理学
起源：來自經濟學的「理性決策」假設
最早，「沉沒成本（sunk cost）」這個概念源自傳統經濟學。
經濟學家早在 19 世紀末期（如 Alfred Marshall）就提出：
「理性決策者在考慮是否繼續投資時，應該只關注未來的成本與報酬，而不應考慮已經發生、無法回收的支出。」
也就是說——沉沒成本應該被忽略。
但人類並不理性。這才引出了心理學的研究。
⸻
概念命名與心理化：1970s–1980s
1970 年代，心理學家開始注意到「人們常常無法放棄已投入的成本」。
這時期最重要的兩位人物是：
Richard Thaler（理查・塞勒）

美國行為經濟學家，被譽為「行為經濟學之父」。
他在 1980 年代系統性地提出「沉沒成本謬誤（Sunk Cost Fallacy）」的心理學觀點。
Thaler 發現，人們會因為「已經投入太多」，而繼續投入更多，即使這樣做明顯不理性。
他在 2017 年因此類研究（包括這一領域）獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。#諾貝爾經濟學獎
Hal R. Arkes & Catherine Blumer (1985)
他們在 1985 年發表經典研究〈The Psychology of Sunk Cost〉。
實驗發現：人們在已經付出金錢或努力後，會傾向「不想浪費」，因此做出更糟的選擇。
這篇研究奠定了沉沒成本「心理學版本」的核心基礎。
⸻
用一句話總結
經濟學版本（理性假設）：沉沒成本應該被忽略。
心理學版本（現實人性）：人們往往無法忽略沉沒成本。
而讓這個理論廣為人知、進入大眾語彙的關鍵人物就是：
理查・塞勒（Richard Thaler）。
我走過FOMO、爆倉、沉沒成本的陷阱，所以我知道該怎麼讓你避開它們。I’ve been through FOMO, liquidation, and sunk costs.Now I trade with clarity — and I’ll show you how.
——Aston在下不求富