I agree with you Salahmu that it makes more sense to be able to stick with it and not to overdo it, but if a person has his/her emergency fund in strong standings, then it might not hurt to have some periods of increasingly buying BTC.. but also when someone is being so aggressive with his/her monthly BTC buying there may be some needs to have some funds to be available on the side for buying on dips. 

It can be difficult to really determine if someone might be overdoing it or not, until some kind of a negative event or an emergency comes and then if s/he is saying that he does not have any money and blah blah blah, there might have been some mistakes earlier in the process that ended up putting him/her into that position of not being able to sustainably invest in BTC and especially not be able to buy when the BTC price ends up going down... that is if it does end up going down, because there is no guarantee, either way, so that is part of the difficulties in trying to strike some kind of a balance to prepare for either price direction and to be aggressive at the same time.

At the risk of over-complication, I decided to update the chart/table again to: 1) add the 200-week moving average in there (columns H, I & J).. and since it was getting so cluttered, 2) remove account 2.



Adding in the 200-week moving average, and being able to see it next to the BTC spot price (columns D, E & F) might help to show more clearly what is being attempted here, in terms of the withdrawals authorizations being measured in terms of the bottom (the 200-week moving average), so the value of the account had been fluctuating in price more in terms of Spot price, yet the 200-week moving average continues to move up slowly, and most likely if we are trying to keep the account balance somewhat stable, then our withdrawal rate would potentially come close to flattening out the account's value in terms of the 200-week moving average.  

Of course, most of us likely realize that the cost of living continues to go up so much in terms of the dollar value, but if the withdrawal amount (limit) of our budget might slowly continue to go up, then that should not be a bad problem to have, so probably none of us should mind if even the value of the account continues to go up in terms of the 200-week moving average, even if we might be ongoingly withdrawing from it, and feeling that we are no longer feeling any need for our account to grow in any meaningful way beyond just making sure it covers the increases in the cost of living in terms of dollars.


I am hoping to get closer to more of a finalized version so that there would not be too many more changes to format type issues, and maybe there were just a few too many unexpected format-related changes?  

I am not unreceptive to some changes to the colors, and I did send you a PM, too.

Edited: the above is the latest chart to my opening post 2, and seems to be the foundational ideas for Bitmover's helping me to create an interactive website.

"Things" are going to get more interesting than they already have been?  #Asking for an enemy

You seem to be buying into dumb ideas.

It was not up to CZ/Binance about whether FTX got regulated or not. The claims that CZ/Binance was controlling FTX because CZ/Binance had a 20% ownership in FTX is looney. FTX paid that loan back to CZ/Binance, in part with their crappy FTT tokens.. and also FTX had gotten themselves into shitty circumstances because their growth was based on marketing and hype, while the same time they were gambling with client money in a variety of ways, and they were setting up scammy and dishonest systems to convolute their scams right from the start.


FTX survived based on Gambling, and they were running a ponzie scheme.. with SBF acting like a socially awkward honest person when he was scamming and calculating the whole time to sell his image in order that more and more people would throw money at FTX.


Yeah of course, CZ and Binance are favorite punching bags, and sure the FTX trustees can try to claw back that money from Binance/CZ, but they still need a legal basis beyond the argument that CZ is a BIG Meanie.

Ok.  I watched the documentary, and their portion about CZ contributing to the downfall of FTX is quasi-looney… and yeah, there are some smart people who contributed to the documentary, but they also have some dumb ideas too..

Thus, you are crazy if you believe that anything except for Sam and the other various FTX agents were responsible for the level of fraud and corruption that took place at and through FTX and Alameda. 

That was not CZ's or Binance's doing, even though there ongoing forced comparisons, and it is quite misinformative to be putting CZ/Binance as if it were engaged in the same (or similar) to FTX.. .There have been other documentaries doing the same thing, but the mere fact that they come out with several documentaries saying similar things and making similar dumb comparisons does not make them true. Merely because they are in well-presented televised formats..

I personally believe that 2% is too extreme, and many people will not even be able to comply with limiting to less than 10%, and sure I personally only have around less than 0.5% of my "crypto" holdings that are in shitcoins, but there were times when even I had more than 2% in shitcoins, including when B-cash was being issued, and it took me several months to get out of my b-cash position, but part of the matter dealt with technically trying to figure out how to claim them.. but surely I had some other shitcoins.. but really much of the time they were only 1% or 2%, but then maybe it has to do with other matters too.. and let's say that a guy has a $100k investment portfolio and so he has around $15k in bitcoin.. so a pretty aggressive position of 15% in bitcoin, and so I am suggesting that he could have up to $1,500 in shitcoins, and you are suggesting that he should ONLY have up to $300 in shitcoins.

I still think that they are going to have trouble staying below 10%..and so maybe even less is better, and I have no problem with that... but I think that 10% is more realistic and workable..  

I say the same thing about any trading that anyone should do, and I say to limit such trading to 10% of the size of your bitcoin account.  I do kind of believe that shitcoin and trading overlaps, but there may even be some degenerates who have 10% in shitcoins and 10% of their bitcoin that they are trading, so then that bings them up to 20% of their BTC holdings into two different kinds of degeneracy... it sounds a bit to much to both you and me, but at the same time, it is way better than some of the folks who claim that they are in bitcoin and have less than 50% into actually holding bitcoin, and surely there are even worse than that.. and then maybe they wonder why they end up getting quite scatter-brained and probably have very difficult to follow and meandering ideas in regards to what they are supposedly doing with their "investments."


Well are they going to be damaged very much if they have no more than 10% in there as I suggest or no more than 2% as you suggest?  After they lose their money, then that money likely has to stay on the books for a while before they are able to put another 10% into shitcoins.

So let's say like in my earlier example, they had $1,500 into shticoins and maybe they had $15k into bitcoin... so I am not sure how long they might have to wait to be able to put more money into shitcoins.. perhaps they could put 10% of any new money into shitcoins, so if the person bought another $5k worth of bitcoin over the next year, then he would be able to invest $500 into shitcoins.. to the extent that he did not learn his lesson the first time around... but hey how these matters are calculated could have ways of investing higher than 10% and saying that he is ONLY investing 10%,, even though he lost the whole 10% the first time around.  In other words, these kinds of guys are going to want to take from the BTC profits and to put it into shitcoins... because they are going to feel that $500 is not enough.. even though he already lost $1,500.


Sure.. no problem.. but still how you going to guide people with "just say no to shitcoins.".. even though frequently I do say fuck shitcoins, but if you are going to do them, no more than 10% or the size of your bitcoin investment... and whatever, you can tell people whatever you like and I don't feel like I am encouraging them.. because I do also say stay away from shitcoins.. and also there are some people who are very poor.. like $10 per week or even some low amounts and they are wanting to divide to do part in bitcoin and part in shitcoins... so yeah.. are they going to listen?  I am not sure... I mostly think that they won't but it is better to say something than not to say anything at all.. even though some people are not even going to be receptive to listening anyhow.. so they might even be more of a lost cause and just have to learn through their experiences.


Why you pumping shitcoins here.  Fuck shitcoin.  Why don't you go to some other thread if you want to talk about which shitcoins that you want to get into because some of them from your point of view are less shitty than other shitcoins.


You are contradicting yourself.  Yeah, sure shitcoins are meant for selling, but you are also suggesting to buy them.. so you are in the wrong place exploring those kinds of ideas.


Again.. Fuck shitcoins.  Take your promotoin of that kind of nonsense somewhere else (there are shitcoin threads).  but this is not one of them. .we ONLY talk about shitcoins here in order to bash them or discourage them, not to take them anywhere close to seriously as any kind of thread-related strategy.. .

I could not resist but to make a few adjustments to my table in order to 1) add descriptions to the spends from they accounts, 2) show the dollar amounts for each month and that way we can see how the dollar value of the account changes, 3) highlight a couple of the values related to how the BTC spot price relates to the 200-week moving average, which showed me that I had mislabelled row three and it should be BTC spot price - even though the highlighted cell is 200-week moving average.

Adding of the dollar value did really highlight that a 4% withdrawal rate is likely quite a bit too low in terms of a sustainable amount, even though it might be an acceptable withdrawal rate if the goal is to allow the account(s) to continue to grow... so if the goal would be to attempt to mostly maintain the value of the account,  most likely the withdrawal rate would need to be quite a bit higher than 4% per year, perhaps double or more.

You cannot leave "us" hanging like that.    

Pray tell.







When is the next Mensa meeting?

Sure.. bitcoin is a not a social platform.. and in that regard there are certain kinds of projects that are not going to be 501(c)3, yet bitcoin is a good project to contribute towards.

As far as open and social platforms and your own hoping to become obsoleted, I hope that you are considering contributing to Nostr?  https://nostr.com/

You can still have opinions regarding either what you believe might be happening and if you might believe that there are certain kinds of ways of characterizing what may be our current BTC price dynamics situation.

Otherwise, if we have no opinions then why would we be here?

I recall that in some of my training in which I had to give reports to a boss.  One of the main ingredients after providing the facts, the analysis and the various conclusions was to provide some kind of a recommendation regarding what to do.. Is it it a yes or a no, and surely there is no way to get away with a maybe since even a maybe would need to lean either one way or the other... because in the end there is frequently a need for some kind of action rather than just presentation of the information.

The same is likely true in life.  Each of us are actors up[on the information that we share and analyze, and even if our recommendation might be "stay the course, and keep doing what you have been doing." then we are still accounting for what it was that we were doing and maybe why we should stay the course.  Or maybe we might recommend:  "stay the course, but if you see x, y z, then go to the right but if you see a, b or c then you better go to the left."

So my point is that some kind of recommendation is necessary in regards to any presentation of information.. so even if we provide a link to an article, we should easily be able to say I agree with this, this and that, but I think that the other thing is pure bullshit... There is some value in those kinds of presentations, whether you are merely in agreement with a lot of others or if you are sorting your own path, and probably many people have opinions that deviate a bit from the mainstream in one way or another, but who the hell is going to know unless you say something.

I remember when I first started posting on the forum, sometimes I would have an idea about a post, and then I would hesitate to say what I think about the topic, and then later I realized that even if someone ends up posting something similar to me, there usually are going to be some variations, so it's not like I need to read through the remainder of the posts before my opinion should be expressed.. and part of the benefits of just responding is that you have taken a stance.. even if someone later might end up posting something similar, which surely is not as common as many of us might have had believed it to be.


Personally, I have no problem with using loans in order to speculate on something like BTC, and yeah it is a form of front-loading of the investment.   One of the important things is to have ways to pay back the loan from sources other than BTC.. so that the repayment of the loan should not be dependent upon the thing that you are betting on.. otherwise you may well be fucked if the investment moves against you.  So in other words, there is a need to be prepared for either price direction, even when taking a loan... and if you are not able to take the loss (if the BTC price were to move against you), then you should not take the loan... otherwise, if you have planned through it, then you can still take the loan even if it ends up costing you more than you would have had made in the event that you had just bought BTC regularly rather than front-loading your investment with a loan.


Hasn't this been true about every $1k since $31k?  or did we start at $32k?  Anyhow, it seems that the last six weeks have been this way every thousand up has been a grind... at least so far.

Sure... I can say, been there done that.  But it was such a quickie.. so it becomes difficult to have had any sustainable experiences when it happens so quickly like that.

More sustainable might be another story.

Many of us likely already realize that when the BTC price goes up quickly, then there can be questions regarding if the buy support can keep up with how fast the BTC price is going up.  It seems that in the last month and a half, the BTC price has been grinding up.. grinding and grinding, so it would seem that the buy support should be able to keep up, yet it cannot really be know.

Are we in a kind of grueling punishment mode in which the shorts continue to get placed, but they keep getting punished?

The fence sitters and the "wating for the dippers" are getting punished too, no?


Wow!         You have high expectations Stepstowealth.

43,210 - could be fun too, on the way up to 45,678.90


You have come up with quite a few variations.....


On one of the bitcoin-related podcasts (I cannot recall which one), I had heard that there were some issues regarding how that transaction had started out as stolen funds.. I am not sure if it is true, but it makes it possible to refund the fees but not the body of the transaction that was already stolen.. which was something like 55/56 BTC.. like mentioned in that quoted article.. so then sometimes there could be questions about if refunding the fees could end up going to the person who stole the money or the original owner.. and sometimes it might be a bit difficult to sort out which is which (or who is who).

Are missing some kind of a link when you are referring to the "Bloomberg doc" because I am unclear about the reference, and the way you are describing the matter of Binance's/CZ's stake in FTX seems strange too.  My understanding is that Binance/CZ helped to get FTX started, so it was a kind of loan that FTX paid back by using some real assets, but also by partially paying Binance/CZ with their FTT tokens. which was part of the reason that Binance/CZ had so many FTT tokens.

There is likely nothing that conspiratorial about one exchange investing in another exchange, and then once the newer exchange becomes successful to thereafter pay back the loan that they received... so Binance's 20% ownership in FTX was ONLY for a period of time, and yeah, when FTX had gotten into trouble, Binance/CZ said that they would look at the possibility of rescuing them or buying the company.. but only after a few days Binance/CZ determined that FTX was too messed up to even consider getting involved in buying it or bailing them out.

Even though Sam was continuously seeming to court favors from various kinds of regulators, it really must be questionable the extent to which they were trying to get regulated - except in kinds of scammy and scummy backdoor ways that would likely blow up sooner or later, which surely should cause many of us to pause in our thinking regarding how much we don't really know about the various back room relations that FTX had and whether politicians (and regulators) were merely involved in any kinds of ways with FTX/SBF based on their own use of FTX as ways to launder money and/or to potentially attack bitcoin and/or crypto... I am surely not claiming to understand very much, even though surely there are a lot of folks who have lost money through FTX, so they may be more motivated to look into what matters that they are able to attempt to figure out from various sources already out there, including maybe trying to figure out various kind of relationships that are still not known and/or potentially being covered up... which maybe part of the reason that some folks might be wanting the second trials against sam and maybe some others to go forward... which may or may not end up helping to bring some more of the facts to light in terms of what kinds political influence behaviors were taking place.. which truly Sam's parents and maybe even some of his family have way more culpability in their various behaviors than what is being investigated into (at least from what we know about any investigations into Sam's parents and/or relatives).

You likely need more than a week for the various scenarios to work out to apply three or four of the main BTC accumulation techniques (if we include HODL as a technique).. so sure you could start out with some of them, but maybe you should explain what you had supposedly been doing in the last week in order that three you mentioned you had employed?


Sharing can help each of us to teach and to learn, so we can learn from our own description of our approaches and/or to describe some of our ideas, even if we might end up talking in terms of hypotheticals or percentages rather than disclosing too many specifics regarding our own particulars.

A new person into bitcoin might not even know for sure how long that s/he is going to stay in bitcoin, but there might be some kind of a framework of at least 4 years or maybe aiming for 10 years or more, and at the same time, if there might be accumulation goals in the beginning several years, then the rate of your accumulation might also help to inform you more about how you might consider to change your strategies after maybe having a decent stake in BTC, whether it is some percentage of your overall investment portfolio or if you don't have any other investments, then maybe you would measure the size of your bitcoin holdings in light of how many years of income/expenses that it might constitute.. and if it gets up to a certain number of years, such as 20-30 years, then you likely could end up putting yourself into a place in which you don't have to work anymore and you can just live off of the proceeds of your bitcoin investment... but it could take a long time to get to those kinds of levels, and not everyone is very comfortable to speculate out that far including knowing that many obstacles could be between just starting out and getting to points in which you start to believe that maybe you could either start to sell some of your BTC or maybe you don't really need to accumulate more BTC, yet you still have BTC as part of your overall wealth and various options that you have if you want to make changes in the kinds of work that you do (or don't do) and other kinds of consumption or investment activities that you might choose.


We are not talking about crypto or shitcoins in this thread.  So if you meant to use the word bitcoin, then you would at least be on topic.

Why would you use any word other than bitcoin?   Because you somehow believe bitcoin and crypto are the same thing, or close to the same thing.. or maybe you were just trying to sound smarter.. but in fact you don't sound smarter when you use the word crypto when you are describing something that ONLY works with bitcoin or any kind of an asset that you are able to assess as an investable asset.. which means that it has  decently good odds of going up in value and having various strong fundamental attributes  that make it worth holding for the long term.. such as 4-10 years or longer.  Any of us should be able to make those kinds of long term assessments for bitcoin, but it is not presumptively true of any of the shitccoins.. and if you have some shitcoins that you believe fit in that category, then sure you could invest in that crap, but you should be talking about them in another thread because we are not talking about shitcoins here.


Those are not baseless conjectures, especially since they are non-zero.. but they are likely not worth focusing on.. even though they should be accounted for.. just like any of us who might be newer to bitcoin likely should be trying to be as aggressive as we can with our bitcoin investment, but not so aggressive that we end up losing some or all of our coins because we failed/refused to account for a variety of negative scenarios that could end up playing out that don't even require bitcoin to go to zero, even though it could go quite low and even stay quite low for years, and years and years.. so those kinds of scenarios should be accounted for, even if they are not the base case scenario in which bitcoin is likely going to be going up and those who are not prepared for UP are likely going to be missing out and too bad for them.

One of the greatnesses of bitcoin is many of us might well not even need to put a whole hell of a lot of bitcoin into bitcoin in order to have potentials to profit stupendously in the coming years, but at the same time profiting stupendously is not guaranteed and we should be able to both keep a lot of the possible scenarios in mind, to be able to prepare for a variety of scenarios both financially and psychologically while realizing that there are no guarantees that what we did is going to end up putting us in a place that we would like to be which likely may well be that having more options and that investing in bitcoin was better than not investing into  it. 

By the way, I frequently hear a statement that "bitcoin is going to win" blah blah blah.  From my perspective, bitcoin has already won, and it is just a matter of how much more it is going to continue winning.. and we can still be winners and winning, but still could end up suffering a lot of set backs along the way.. the concept of already won and likely continuing to win does not amount to everything being positive or that some battles are not taking place and also that there are also losers within bitcoin because they don't play their winning hand very well and they end up losing coins and doing other dumb stuff, even though they should realize that they are working with a winning hand already, especially if they already know about bitcoin and they already have been taking actions to make sure that they maintain a decently aggressive bitcoin allocation (without overdoing it, which is also possible).


When it comes to shitcoins, of course people have the right to do whatever they like, and we are not going to stop people from being dumb and even overly playing their shitcoin hand by investing too much into them (in terms of time, money and energies), but you cannot really stop people, yet instead of encouraging anyone from getting involved into shitcoins, I frequently will just suggest to limit your shitcoin adventures to less than 10% of your bitcoin value, and in the end people are going to do what they like anyhow.. ..

 and by the way, even with limiting themselves, there are responsible ways to limit yourself and there are less responsible ways.. so some people might agree to limit themselves to something like 10%. .and then when they keep drawing from bitcoin and other assets in order to get their stake back up to 10% into their shitcoin, they may well be engaging in a kind of cheating, but it is much easier to control such cheating if it is restricted to 10% rather than if they had some higher number such as 20% or even some people suggest 50% which is absolutely crazy in terms of both the amount but also in term of how able those gambling shitcoiners can end up in ongoingly cheating by tapping into the other and end up draining the value of everything even if they claimed that they had a 50/50 limit or whatever other bullshit.. so yeah, there may be a few smart people who can go beyond 10% and even show that they are able to make money, but that does not mean that the way that we speak to others should be in terms of a 10% limit. .and people are going to come to their own conclusions anyhow, which sure they are free to do it, but we are also free to continue to suggest a10% limit, even if they might be able to show us that they had been successful (monetarily) with their having had gone beyond the limit that we suggested to them.

You seem to be asking about less likely scenarios.  So what is your reason to focus on those kinds of matters?

There are various ways that the plan for him to: 1) step down (which is done)
2) campaign and win in February
3) start his next term in June

might not end up playing out... but right now that does not seem to be the base-case scenario... so if you want to speculate about various things that could go wrong, then maybe you need to put odds on the various things that you believe might happen..

And yeah, the future is not guaranteed.. but aren't the odds right now in favor of the above plan playing out?  absent some unforeseen event .. that may or may not happen.. so you want to focus on the unforeseen event then go ahead, list the various unforeseen event scenarios, give each one of them odds and then spend time talking about each of them, including if you believe that if you put together a whole bunch of low odd events, would that help to increase the odds of one of them happening if you combine them all together..? do you ever get to odds that are greater than 50/50, even if you combine all of your speculative events?  

Oh, you don't want to do that kind of work, so you would rather merely ask the question so that some other forum member needs to do that work?  Go on.  You do it.  It's your suggestion that the above plan is not going to play out.. so go ahead, describe your various scenarios.. and provide some actual factual basis rather than pie in the sky speculation for the mere sake of it.

You are not technically incorrect that shitcoins would not have any space to exist if they did not have Bitcoin's shroud of protection.. and even inspiration to make imitations of bitcoin has been in place with further contagions and variations... so I am not even denying any of these kinds of dynamics exists - yet there seems to be little to no reason to spin these dynamics in positive ways...and Bitcoin as a father seems to be taking it too far... maybe bitcoin as a great grandfather would at least be a bit less offensive because it is a lot less direct.


Sure, there can be some shitcoins with some redeeming qualities, but it is difficult to proclaim that ethereums should be one of them based on the extent of both its own personal scamminess with both issuance and also the various ongoing schemes to keep it alive and including that it has had a pretty central existence to serve as a facilitator of other shitcoins to be built on top of it.. or pumping it or talking positively about it... but sure there are many shitcoins that are going to continue to exist...

If you want to hear about a shitcoin that I don't tend to talk negatively about that would be USDT because it had been providing a lot of liquidity in a fairly responsible way since around 2014 while surely being ongoingly attacked at various points by governments and in other ways (including exaggerated FUD regarding its supposedly causing the BTC price to pump), but then its current cooperative status with various governments (USA and/or otherwise) seems to be an existence play in which we have to be careful in regards to getting too cosy with it.. because surely USDT does not have the attack resistance powers of bitcoin.. in terms of bitcoin's proof of work powers and ongoing growth of bitcoin's network effects (as outlined by Trace Mayer).  

I don't know very much about BNB, except it is a Binance creation that might have started out as a Utility token.. and I doubt that it is really worth getting too much into what it is exactly... or any shitcoins to be getting into arguments regarding which of them might be less shitty.. and surely you are free to engage in those kinds of distractions, and hopefully you are able to keep your eye on the prize, even if you might be getting diverted in some various ways with thinking some shitcoins including Ethereum and BNB deserve to be talked about positively for some reason?

Ready, set, go..

65 hours remaining.


UPpity ONLY is stressful in its own right, even for those of us mostly HODLing our cornz....or even hating to admit shaving a bit here and there and for those who don't have enough cornz.. and were really under stocked at $26k/27k in mid-October because for sure it was going to dip.. I mean we were just at $24,920 on September 11.. so just think about if you had not been prepared enough for UPpity because you were still waiting for a little more down... and there has not been any down. nothing to help fix the under-preparedness of the BTC holdings.. for those folks.. but now, looking at prices right around 44% higher.. and still no relief in sight.. ..


Wow!!!!!

Admitting your level of distractedness....

Remember when Doggie was on it's run in 2020-ish? or was it 2021?  and you kept saying that your partner was a nutjob because he continued to not sell his doggie coin because he was waiting for $1 or something like that.... and you end up being part of the nutjob.. I suppose holding onto Doggie coin. .even if you've been mining them.. but whatever, maybe sometimes any of us might wonder about your questionable logic and/or talking points that involve quite a bit of variety in your ability to embrace various shit projects and also to openly brag about it.

One funny thing about a lot of shitcoins.. if you don't measure them in terms of bitcoin, many of them have been able to have decent performance over the dollar.. but still just think how much risk you are running by holding various kinds of crap in your supposed investment portfolio..

I did finally finish my end of the month accounting and ballparkedly in the around 77% bitcoin, a little more than 2.5% cash (or cash equivalents - maybe around 35% of that is USDT - still trying to seamlessly redistribute out of my June 2023 Binance mistake), a little less than 0.4% in various shitcoins, and the rest in various other assets, which would be right close to 20%.. 


Difficult to know how far up it could go.

I was kind of suspecting resistance in the $50k to $55k area, yet nothing in bitcoinlandia can be "for sure."

I am also thinking that it would be difficult for noman's land (which is right around $55k to $82.5k) would be difficult to pass right through and also meet the definition of "no man's land" in the event that we would go straight there from our upper $26ks jumping off point. .which is actually starting to seem like our starting point for this particular run.

Does anyone know better than that?

Approval of several ETFs are kind of looking like that they are going to be in early January rather than in 2023 - because there still seem to be some open public comment periods that run into the first couple of days of January, so it would seem unlikely to get any approvals of the ETFs prior to the run of the public comment period.. It seems that the SEC would be opening themselves up for lawsuits if they approved any ETFs prior to the run of the public comment period.

It seems to me that we are attempting to bat around what we believe to be the better of practices, so sometimes we give examples and describe what might be the better practices.  One of the difficulties is not to be able to determine for another person in terms of how much to allocate and how well s/he should examine his/her cashflow in order to assure how much discretionary income is left over after expenses and making sure that the emergency fund is correct.

So it seems that there are better practices,.. otherwise, if the situation was "just do whatever you like", then we probably would not be spending so much time batting around the various ideas and the various things that should be considered..


If we say some people, then we figure out that some people do all kinds of shit, and maybe that is why we either describe matters in terms of hypothetical or in terms of our own practices... Did you want to say what you are doing?  or just vaguely talk about what some people might be doing in a kind of theoretical way?..


O.k.. this is better.  So you are saying that once you get to a year's salaray accumulated, then you reassess how you might plan to go from there.  Nothing wrong with that.


ok... it is not a rule exactly, but assessing your own situation is a kind of recommendation of what to do, no?


You sound short sighted.. but still .. the idea about investment amount is to invest no more than you can afford to lose.. which largely just means make sure that you have your expenses covered, and that even if the investment dropped a lot you would not panic because you have already considered the possibility that it might drop...

Of course ultimately psychology comes partly from developing a practice in which you attempt to prepare for a variety of situations, so then you will already have a plan in place, and so hopefully you do not plan to panic... or lose money as Odohu mentioned.. but if you have already planned that they BTC price could go down from your entry point, then you could have had already established a plan to either buy more or hold through rather than sell... .. or maybe you would have some plans to sell under certain situation as you mentioned, but since we are considering longer term considerations in this thread, many of us already seemed to planned to not sell in the short-term - even though it is difficult to talk for everyone. .because some might not exactly disclose their plans and then others will change their plans when they end up panicking.

I think that any of us can still be true believers, and still conclude that we have enough BTC.

It is not easy for someone like me to criticize what Saylor is doing, because the world does benefit from a variety of perspectives, including his level of ongoingly investing large amounts into bitcoin.     
 
Those kinds of strategies are also not necessary for normies to emulate without getting themselves into trouble, even though it might show some normies that they are being too whimpy in their bitcoin approach.

I personally have not changed my strategy because of Saylor, even though surely his ongoing buying does give me several assurances, and I even use him as an example of what people can do and still not overdo it that is much more than what I personally do, and even though I largely suggest normie newbies to start out with something between 1% and 25% into bitcoin, Saylor kind of brags about being "more than 100% in," which is also a bit misleading to compare him with normies, so there were likely some normies attempting to do what he was doing and ending up recking themselves, and I am not going to necessarily blame Saylor for that, but I am also not going to suggest that "too much is never enough," because sometimes, too much is actually too much.

I felt like I had too much BTC in 2015 in terms of my own goals and I have been dealing with that ever since, and surely I have not sold very many of those BTC, but I have pretty much stayed with the perception that I have too much BTC.. but it still feels good at the same time.. so maybe at this time, my BTC might be in the ballpark of 70% to 75% of my total networth.. or my various quasi-liquid assets that I consider constitute my overall investment portfolio.. I do have to get my monthly accounting in order.. but I think that is about where I am at... .. but still for me that is either enough BTC or even too much BTC.. so it does not really feel like a bad thing, but I suppose if BTC prices were to go below $10k I might start to wonder?  Why do I have so much BTC?  .. but yeah, does not seem too likely that we are going there.. and if we end up going below $10k I will have to deal with it because I will likely be buying all the way down.. probably at least down to $13k.. and probably a bit lower.. Even my contingency plans for below $17k are starting to get weak at this time.. .I must admit.... so why prepare for things that seem quite unlikely to actually happen?

I have not exactly placed my down odds, but surely it is starting to seem like anything even below $22k is seeming realy quite unlikely, but I still don't mind preparing pretty decently for a bit below $20k.. just like I was mostly prepared for down to $20k in 2022.. but my preparations below $20k were not that great.. and so those can be trying times and some of us not really having a very much money available to buy more if the BTC price were to keep going down.. so just HODL.. maybe cut various expenses.. resume DCA that had not really been used very much since 2015.. .. all of this as a result of both having enough and even having too much BTC.

I feel that I am in a pretty privileged position to still not have to really take any real drastic moves, even though we spent a couple of months in those kinds of way below $20k lows.. and probably we even spent closer to 7-8 months bouncing around, testing $20k and not getting too far above $20k. and there was even a revisit of sub $20k in early March 2023.. so yeah. going back up from there surely can bring back some more confidence, but there still are moments of feeling like having too much BTC.. while at the same times having BTC that at worse was only 16x to 20x in profits during the worst of the periods, and surely other people with larger holdings in BTC but their BTC might well not have been so great in mine in terms of the level of profits that they were in the worst of 2022 and early 2023..

So I guess that I am not even really referring to the newbies who would still be able to lap up bitcoin during those times but yeah we cannot presume the circumstances of the newbies because sometimes even the newbies are going to be feeling like they have too much bitcoin, while they continue to buy more similar to how I was starting to feel in 2014 and 2015 when the BTC price kept going down and seeming like it did not want to start to go up.. so at some point I started to feel like I had enough and even too much, but I continued to buy... which was already part of the system of bringing down the average cost per BTC in the stash, even if the overall BTC portfolio was more than 50% in the red.. so maybe there were some times that it was ONLY 36% or so in the positive.. , so each purchase brought the average price down, but each purchase was a drop in the bucket as compared with how much that had already been put in at higher prices.

I probably have made my point well enough.. ,.. even though I do feel a bit of rambling to have had taken place.

I doubt that you are wrong about anything that you are saying, yet at the same time you are describing matters a bit strange in terms of possible rules that might apply regarding what any person might choose to do, when s/he is actually under full discretion to do whatever s/he wants to do including trying to follow strict forms of DCA or to tailor some kinds of DCA to his/her own circumstances, and or to bounce between Lump sum investing, buying on dips, DCA and HODL.

So some of us might suggest: Why don't you just stick with DCA until you get to a certain amount of BTC that represents a whole year of your salary/ yearly expenses, and then rethink the matter after that?  Others might say that is too strict, and maybe just follow DCA for a whole year and then rethink that matter after that.  Others might consider that they are not going to feel good  to employ DCA because they had injected a lump sums at four points of their BTC investment journey (1) right at the beginning of their getting into BTC, 2) 3 months after DCAing  3) 9 months into the investment and then 4) 15 months after starting the investment journey. 

So in that case, the person may have been DCAing the whole time, but also influenced by the DCA choices, and was motivated to set up some funds for buying on dips... or maybe to modify the amounts that the were DCA'ing in order to save 1/3 of their available cash to hold aside for buying on dips and the other 2/3 would be put towards DCA.  Maybe I would just suggest that if you had used some word choices about best practices in regards to certain kinds of ways of combining different strategies, then you might have been better off than saying that there were rules, but even the idea of best practices kind of suggests that deviating from the supposed best practices would be deviating from rules. .

...and so maybe changing the language would really save you from the better ways of not really suggesting that anyone has to follow rules in order to do things right, but surely we might criticize anyone's approach if they call something DCA that really is not DCA because it is buying on dip or maybe structuring buys in ways that are within a kind of price prediction framework which might still kind of be DCA but seems to be a kind of buying on dip framework, which is not necessarily a bad thing.. including the slippery slopes that guys might end up getting into in terms of reducing their DCA by more and more and more as the BTC price goes up and then maybe they start to think about selling instead of buying, which may or may not be a good idea, but surely we would suggest that is both deviating from DCA but also taking buying on dip to another level that devolves into trading and maybe some other less preferable practices, even though again people can do whatever they like in the end, even though maybe some of us here are might be suggesting that they are not really even following better accumulation strategies, even though they might end up getting lucky and timing their sell and their buy back in such a way that does not end up screwing up their system.. so there are degrees, and probably many of us would still lecture those people for setting a bad example.. even though they can do what they want..


That would be a good example of choosing not to overly prepare for buying on dips, since holding some money aside might be considered as a means to prepare for buying on dips, and surely sometimes, we might be considering how much do we want to hold for buying on dips, and so at some point, for example, we might tell our selves that based on our own particulars, it is o.k. to have $600 set aside for buying on dips because "I already have it set for certain price points", but then maybe if the buying on the dip fund ends up getting up to $1k, then that is too much to be holding in reserves, so I am not going to wait for a dip for all of that, and I am going to spend $300 of it within the next two week to buy BTC and the other $100 I will just let that amount float in a kind of in-between (or a flexible) status.