I should have added: sell the cryptos at a loss and invest in a reputable ETF. Since then, the loss has been offset by the gains from the ETF (even though they’re not realized yet).
Moral of the story: Patience is the mother of all virtues.
But I’m feeling good, thanks for asking 
.
So what was the mistake? You crypto would probably recover, unless it’s FTT or similar shit…
What I want to say is:
I don’t think we should put them all together. And another thing is that we should not judge decisions by their outcomes.
Where would you put NFTs in your list?
Depends on the situation.
Jumping on the bandwagon because “everyone is getting rich and I also want to” is 3.
Estimating the risks and potential rewards and deciding to go with it - well, who said it was a mistake? Some people did get rich, and the negative outcome is an integral part of risky investments.
So in the same category as lottery tickets?
No . Lottery tickets (or any casino game etc.) have negative expected outcome that can be easily (algorithm-wise) calculated. Usually it’s enough to know that the lottery organizers take half or more of the money collected by selling tickets before they distribute the rest to tickets holders.
Don’t NFTs also have negative expected outcomes?
Please go on and calculate it.
Philosophical, but in what other way would you judge decisions?
No, this is actually one of probably the most harmful psychological biases of humans.
You should judge a decision according to how well the information available at the time (pros/cons, risks/rewards) was employed to make that decision.
Agree
This is what Warren Buffet also does
Imagine you have a biased coin that comes up heads 1% of the time and tails 99% of the time. You can make a bet for heads and get paid 10x your bet if you win.
Obviously this has a negative expectation. So it would be incorrect to play (with correct bet sizing). But if you do play and get lucky and get 10x your money, would you say you were ‘correct’ to play? You shouldn’t.
Conversely, if the payout was changed to pay 150x your stake, then you should play - even though you would lose 99% of the time.
Now this becomes more tricky when the odds are not known. some people might think it is a normal coin and 50/50. Others might think that it is 10/90. So the skill at evaluating the odds comes into play.
During the crypto boom, it was clear that a lot of coins and NFTs had negative expectation if not being outright scams, but if you evaluated incorrectly, you might have thought it was a great investment. In this case, only looking back at a large number of transactions can you statistically determine who was right or wrong.
IMO, Bitcoin is the most interesting one. Since it is not an outright scam compared to other cryptos and has most institutional backing. But the range of outcomes is huge from those claiming it could be zero to those millions. Years ago, I’d assessed a value in the low hundreds of thousands in case it is widely adopted/accepted. However, this would need to be risk-adjusted for the chance of failure/collapse.
I get all three of you, Phil’s example is very good and clear. Edit: thinking “what if” has caused me a lot of mental stress in the past so I decided to never to do it again, hence once I make a decision it takes a lot to change my mind, if ever 
Great explanation.
I think it’s even true in Basketball.
Three pointer line is placed (maybe by chance) at optimal distance to have almost fair chance of winning versus 2 pointer. So both of them have similar expected return based on probability of success (unless you are Stephen Curry or Caitlin Clark :))
In hindsight, this was purely due to a lack of education on the subject, which, in retrospect, was a mistake. I would have preferred to invest the money in a DCA strategy on VT. I’ve learned from my errors, but not without losing money in the process.