The core of this statement is to tie the "threshold" of investment decisions to the "prediction" of the future.

In simple terms, opportunity cost is "the benefits of B that you have to give up because you chose A." Therefore, when making investments, the minimum return rate you can accept actually reflects your speculation about the "B" that you might encounter in the future.

Just as Buffett believes that in the future there is a high probability of encountering good opportunities with returns exceeding 10%. At this time, if he has a project with an 8% return, he is unwilling to invest—because if he invests in this, and a 15% opportunity does arise in the future, his money will be tied up, which equates to a loss of 7% potential profit (15%-8%). Therefore, the "threshold" he sets for himself is 10%, essentially out of fear of missing out on better options in the future.

But what if the situation changes? For example, if it is clear that the future market interest rate will remain at 1% for a long time, it means that the return rates of other investment opportunities are unlikely to be much higher. At this point, the cost of "giving up future opportunities" decreases - even if you invest in a project with a 5% return now, you might not find a better one in the future, making the opportunity cost almost negligible. Therefore, the 10% threshold set earlier should naturally be lowered.

In short, the line in our minds that says "what minimum return must we achieve before we invest" is never fixed. It is more like a dynamic ruler: the more optimistic we are about future opportunities (thinking there are high returns ahead), the higher the ruler is set; the more cautious we are about future opportunities (thinking there are not many good options ahead), the lower the ruler is set.

This essentially draws a boundary for the choices of "today" using the imagination of "tomorrow." #PI# #BTC#