Is short-term trading ultimately a zero-sum game unfavorable to retail investors, or an indispensable part of the market? Professor Zhou Guan-nan from National Chengchi University Business School’s sharp critique has sparked heated discussion in the investment community. Renowned traders and founders of the crypto industry have also offered completely different perspectives, igniting a fierce debate on the nature of investment and the role of markets.
(Previous summary: Dissecting Korea’s crypto market: Who is behind the trading and narrative of 16 million users?)
(Additional background: A trader on BNB chain bought “I came on a horse” and it skyrocketed 1720 times! 85 becomes over $140,000)

Table of Contents

• Zhou Guan-nan: Short-term trading does not create positive social value
• Giant Jie: Strong rebuttal—Theory detached from practice, questioning academic criticism motives
• Benson: Short-term and long-term each have market roles

Professor Zhou Guan-nan from Taiwan’s National Chengchi University Business School recently posted on Facebook, directly stating that “short-term stock trading” is not only a zero-sum game but, under the influence of transaction fees and taxes, becomes a “negative-sum game” that is detrimental to retail investors. His remarks have sparked lively discussion among investors and communities, with several market opinion leaders subsequently offering different viewpoints.

Zhou Guan-nan: Short-term trading does not create positive social value

In his post, Zhou Guan-nan pointed out that the total gains and losses from short-term trading sum to zero; the money won by winners exactly equals the money lost by losers. Therefore, short-term trading does not generate any positive social value. He used playing mahjong during the New Year as an analogy, emphasizing that without taking a cut, the total amount of funds at the table would not change.

Zhou further noted that the stock market is not “without take,” as broker commissions and government transaction taxes turn short-term trading from a zero-sum into a negative-sum game. Over time, the losers are often retail investors with less access to information and tools, while the real beneficiaries are professional traders and market makers. He also criticized that many retail investors, unaware of financial theories and market rules, rashly enter the market or even pay for “trading mentors,” which he finds quite absurd.

Giant Jie: Strong rebuttal—Theory detached from practice, questioning academic criticism motives

Regarding Zhou Guan-nan’s statement, well-known trader “Giant Jie” expressed very strong opposition and directly criticized his views and stance. Jie believes that the interest rate parity theory, options pricing formula, and capital asset pricing model Zhou mentioned are not impractical but depend on whether one knows how to apply them.

He pointed out that many researchers with deep academic backgrounds have already integrated these theories with quantitative, statistical, and AI techniques, actively participating in markets and achieving results. He questions whether Zhou truly understands and practices what he teaches. Jie further stated outright that dismissing short-term trading as a negative-sum game ignores the fact that there are indeed traders who can profit long-term through discipline and professionalism.

Additionally, Jie questioned the motives behind scholars posting intense comments online, suggesting such remarks might be tools to incite confrontation and attract traffic. He called for the academic community to focus more on the integration of theory and practice rather than merely criticizing market participants from a moral or value perspective.

Benson: Short-term and long-term each have market roles

In response to the above debate, Benson, founder of CoinKarma, approached from a market mechanism perspective. He stated that although he has taken Zhou Guan-nan’s courses, he does not agree with labeling short-term trading as “ill-gotten gains” on moral grounds.

Benson pointed out that short-term traders provide liquidity and facilitate price discovery; long-term investors supply capital and patience to support corporate growth. Both participate in the market for profit, and there is no moral high ground. The market functions effectively precisely because these different roles coexist.

He also admitted that most retail investors engaging in short-term trading are likely to lose money, but that does not mean some can’t profit through short-term strategies over the long run. Regarding the sharing of trading experiences or even offering courses, Benson believes there is no need for excessive criticism, and he bluntly said, “With that amount of capital, even a fixed deposit makes more money than running a course.”