I actually never understood why people open leveraged contracts; I always feel it's just too stupid. Clearly, there are implicit leverage/zero-cost leverage options available, yet they choose the method that makes it easiest to lose. Leveraging has its costs; the explicit cost is the constant erosion of funding fees, while the implicit cost is the increased risk of liquidation. For example, if you go long during a bad market, the fee rate for 1x leverage is 1% per month, but when the market picks up, you might have to bear a funding cost of 10% in a month; after adding leverage, the costs are even higher, and the risk of liquidation increases exponentially with the leverage multiplier. If you must leverage, why not take an off-exchange consumer loan and then buy spot? For instance, if your principal is 200,000, you could use a consumer loan to get 600,000, and then buy spot; this would be 4x leverage, with a funding cost of only 3% per year. (Of course, this method is not recommended, as most people still cannot change the outcome of losing money.) In the market, there are actually many implicit leverage or zero-cost leverage options: Spot is essentially a zero-cost leverage model; the cost of leveraging is actually borne by the gamblers and the "bandages" in the circle. For example: Holding spot is very different from playing contracts, and the longer the cycle, the greater the difference. Spot can serve as a credit asset for some side plays; holding it allows you to earn a share of the profits in this game. If you buy spot and stake it for rent, you might gain about 30-50% more chips in a year. Then, in the next market, if it rises by 50%, you double your investment; if it drops by 20-30%, you might not even lose money; while your returns are amplified, your margin for error is also much larger. Contracts, on the other hand, are a betting game based on asset pricing; if you play the game, you have to spend money, and the funding cost is the threshold for playing. If the price remains unchanged, holding a 1x leveraged contract for a year might result in a net value of 0.8, which is nearly half the difference compared to a spot strategy; the greater the leverage, the larger the gap, and the longer the time, the greater the difference. The former benefits from the time-based play, while the latter continuously incurs time value loss; mathematically, the odds are actually quite different. Choosing assets is also a form of zero-cost leverage: In a market cycle, different assets perform differently. For example, in the last cycle, SUI and BGB rose tenfold; if you were still watching EOS and LTC, you could only enjoy a 6.70% increase. If you have the ability to select strong assets, you essentially add 3-5 times leverage without funding costs or liquidation risks, achieving astonishing profits without taking on extra risks, and you won't just get wiped out by a random spike. Long-term spot as a zero-cost leverage requires patience, while selecting assets as a zero-cost leverage requires skill. Most people lack both, and they also lack confidence in themselves and are unwilling to put in the effort, choosing the most obvious pitfall, losing dozens of points in a year without realizing it, while fantasizing about making big money, only to end up completely wiped out. Private message to Ama: Ama, I only opened 5x leverage and still got liquidated; I don't know what to do 🌶️😭😭😭 My life feels like walking on thin ice; do you think I can still reach the other side? 😭😭😭