Very inspiring I would say :)

Now focusing on the second curve where the rapid growth is asymptotic to a ceiling, which is about 90 degrees off from what most people want.

The rapid gains, tapering to level off through time, apply not just to personal abilities, but also related opportunities. That's a very steep slope to start with. Lots of times things like that can seem unsurmountable or unsustainable. Usually they are.

I recognized this well early in my lifetime of cargo work, since any suitable port for my growth ambitions has always been full of ships since before I was born, and they have "virtually" all been spoken for before I came along. Even before most of today's ships had been built.

In "pure" financial services as a youngster this had not been a limitation, and I got good experience at compound growth until the market crashed and everybody downsized, never to recover but a fraction of the lost potential.

Applying carefully considered growth principles with physical commodities limited by a single port, it's an accomplishment to be able to get any growth at all in a non-growth industry, where the market is already saturated with participants who have already achieved steady gains. Gains in both ability and financial opportunity. The curve, if it can get off the ground, is like your second graph. Even more of an accomplishment when the "rapid gains" period is not leveling but increasing something like 1 percent per day, even though the same ceiling (for that one port) is still there and the curve will have to more drastically reduce slope when the time comes.

What does all this mean? In a long-term pursuit where opportunities are dependent on abilities, the graphs are more applicable to both than they would otherwise be.

It would be hard to put it in further perspectives without other somewhat arbitrary attributes to the graphs, but let's go with the X-axis as 0 - 10 in years. And stay away from things where the 100 on the Y-axis is right there where the established experts are leveling off. The further the 100 point is located off-scale on the Y-axis the better off you could end up. Especially when nobody actually knows where the exact 100 point is, regardless of conventional wisdom or painful limitations.

Well you would be fortunate to level off with the experts and as the curve suggests this could carry on for a couple more decades in an even more flatlined condition. However, the more decades, the more chances for an unprecedented milestone that can once again be built upon in a compound way. Where the slope is very slight from this point but will increase rapidly if allowed to. All of it above a previous ceiling. None of it predicted by the previous curve up until that point.

These are like the leaps you anticipate. Opportunities that arise like this may each be a niche, but it can also be something that others can not offer.

The resulting curve, where your second graph takes the symmetrical gradual upturn in the future, does resemble the electrochemical progress of a titration reaction, where the neutral point just happens to be 100 millvolts (on the Y-axis this time). As reactive material (a third dimension) is added at a steady rate starting from zero (then continuing beyond the point of obviously diminishing returns), you never get above 100 for as long as any buffer lasts. Before you eventually get the uptick from continuing to add reactive material at the same rate the whole time. Some buffers are just more extensive and effective at resisting change compared to others ;)

Looks like the 10-year snapshot on the X-axis is a good starting point for many things after all ;)

That can be where the buffer is just starting to take effect, and very few may be able to make it to the other end. Progress can still be very worthwhile, and when it comes to longevity, it does seem to be a good strategy if you can outlive any remaining alternatives.

Easier said than done but I think I'll keep working on it anyway ;)