There are always going to be folks who are able to take advantage of the market and to take advantage of price momentum, whether we are talking about bitocin or otherwise, including possible insiders; however, it seems to me that Saylor/MSTR can largely be taken at their word in terms of pretty much buying at any price, and not fucking around with trading or trying to manipulate (except to the extent to which he might be ongoingly describing BTC prices as "going up forever.")... so Saylor largely seems to be a buyer at any price, even though maybe in recent times, he might be appreciating that he may have overstepped his bounds by failing/refusing to wait for dips, which largely seems to demonstrate to me, that he does not really have any better or more priviledged position than the rest of us in terms of his mostly betting on UP in a persistent way.

Saylor/MSTR also does not sell BTC, even though they could purposefully manipulate the BTC price down if he  were to want to with his more than 130k BTC, and sure normies (likely no coiners, bitcoin naysayers, shitcoiners, fence sitters) accuse Saylor all of the time of either engaging in such BTC price manipulation practices or having intentions to engage in such practices.. which largely seem to be a bunch of baseless bullshit... perhaps to either trick normies out of their coins or to contribute towards normies failing/refusing to sufficiently/adequately stack sats in order to prepare themselves for UP (no guarantees of UP for sure, but those who do not sufficiently/adequately prepared for UP are likely going to just have to buy their BTC at higher prices, and how much that they have to spend to stack their BTC stash likely has a lot to do with how long they diddly daddly around and fail/refuse to take sufficient actions to get started stacking).    ... wait around to your own peril...lot's of no coiners and low coiners out there, and we are still early as fuck.. especially if you consider that BTC adoption is likely quite less than 1%, and some of those folks who actually do own some BTC are quite likely under prepared for UPpity (ie lowcoiners).

Those charts are not applied to real cases of newbie normies. .or representative situations that normies are going to find themself in while they are accumulating/building their  BTC stash.

It's almost like you are pushing me into outlining some more actual numbers to show what kind of a situation that a newbie normie might find himself in, and also including perhaps having some lump sum amounts available to him at various points during his investment (let's say over the past 9 years-ish).


It seems that I have also made the case several times too.. that it may well be better if any of us might have been able financially and psychologically to have had built our BTC stash larger because we engaged in a practice that facilitated our being more aggressive and assertive rather than being whimpy.

I gave the Saylor example above in which he could have rested on his laurels and had around 30k BTC or maybe more than that.. perhaps 50k BTC, and had an average BTC cost of around $10k per BTC; however, now Saylor has more than 130k BTC, but his average cost per BTC is around $30k per BTC.  Are you going to tell me that the person with 50k BTC at an average cost of $10k per BTC is better off than the person with 130k BTC and an average cost of $30k per BTC?.. and let's say that there is a kind of management of cashflows that facilitated the ability to acquire more than 130k BTC ONLY based on being active, assertive and persistent, so even though the BTC price is currently still below $30k per BTC, there is no way to accumulate an additional 80 BTC based on current capital and cashflow available.. so Saylor (and his company) has an additional 80 BTC that he would not have otherwise been able to accumulate becuase he was aggressive and assertive in a timely and persistent manner.

It is quite likely that we could use similar examples in reference to your own average cost per BTC as compared with mine and the relative quantity of BTC that were able to be accumulated based on aggressive/assertive and timely persistency comparisons.  So you can believe what you like in terms of whether you had really been advantaged by keeping your costs per BTC down over the past 9 years-ish... and another thing still remains the general applicability to other like-wise similarly situated normies.

Don't get me wrong, I am not specifically in any kind of dick measuring contest with you because I hardly give any shits, yet I am trying to suggest that there are significant and materially beneficial difference and advantages in approaches that likely allow for more aggressiveness and assertiveness, and I am still pretty sure that you had failed/refused to be aggressive and assertive in your BTC investments and you were distracted into other investments (just like Philip) in part based on your own bearishness (and nothing that can be done about that), but also likely based on your lack of a persistent and consistent approach that would have contributed towards your being more active rather than waiting around and not pulling the buy trigger as much an as frequently as you otherwise could have iv you had followed a DCA approach in terms of your accumulation of BTC over the past 9 years and more likely in the first 3 years rather than maybe you came around to being more bullish at later dates... perhaps?  I have my doubts.. I get the sense that you are largely ongoingly resting on your laurels and afraid to raise your cost per BTC.


You think so?  I am sure it is possible, especially for someone watching the BTC price and dynamics for 4-9 years previously, but how about for a newbie normie who might be way the fuck more sceptical and unsure about what to do?  you think everyone can figure this out on the spot, even though it is easy to see on the charts after the fact.

How would any newbie normie know when were the highs and when were the low?

When would any newbie normie know how much to buy and whether to save some dry powder?

I doubt it is as easy as you are suggesting, even if your buddy Philip is telling you that it was easy, and look at him, nearly a no coiner... and look at yourself, only 20 BTC.    . I couldn't resist.

Even though I ONLY have a bit more than 0.63 BTC myself, I still think that my points stand.


Oh gawd.

You are looking at the charts and you are saying that if someone might have had $12k at the beginning of 2022 and that person bought $250 per week throughout the year, then s/he would have done worse than the person who bought $4k at three strategic times during the year.. maybe 1) May/June, 2) September-ish and 3) December-ish.

yeah of course.., we can look at the charts and see that kind of 3 lump sums would have been buying $250 every week, but how the fuck is a normie newbie going to know?  Comes into bitcoin in early 2022, has zero coins and is supposed to just wait around rather than getting a stake?  Seems to easy to say that when looking at the charts after the fact and to say that's what s/he should have done.  You are a genius.  Is that replicable? 


Coming up with your own definitions, now?  Yes, there are pure forms and there are ways that people can tweak their strategies.. and if someone is brand new, then they likely have to start with something more "monotonous" and basic until they get their bearings.. including perhaps getting their own financial and psychological shit together. .and if they have some other investing experience or have already built an investment portfolio, then they likely would be less of a normie newbie.. even though there still might be some particulars that anyone new to bitcoin may well have to learn, even if they might have some life experiences (investment, risk management or otherwise) when coming into bitcoin.


Oh?  Now you are starting to get it..   

Have you finally figured out that I do not suggest ONLY DCA, but I suggest when you get started DCA is the best, and then figure out your particulars regarding the employment of the other strategies, but if you don't gots no time to figure things out, then stick with DCA until you gets ur lil selfie some more times to figure things out a wee bit MOAR better.

You are fucking quasi-delusional Philip.  You and your buddy Biodom.

 

Nohomo.

The thing is that any of us should be attempting to figure out some kind of meaningful plan that works for him/her.. and DCA is the most likely to get anyone into the door and get the fuck started.  you can supplement with lump sum investing and buying on dips, and surely you may well be able to figure out ways to improve DCA, and even figure out that you don't really need to DCA for periods of time because you had already bought a bunch of BTC at way lower prices, and you are able to focus on other things (which is another way to substitute buying the dip for DCA and to calculate that you got enough BTC for a certain period of time in which the BTC price might either be going up, down or sideways, but you make personal determinations to discontinue your DCA for a period of time based on the fact that you have already accumulated a decent amount of BTC around that price (and perhaps even at higher prices, but you have concluded that you do not necessarily need to buy more for the time being).

Of course, in theory there are pure forms of one BTC accumulation practice versus another form, and so if some normies might not have time to figure out these kinds of matters, then they are quite likely better off to DCA on a regular basis until such time that they might want to research into their particulars and to perhaps figure out ways to tweak in their favor.

And, I am not even suggesting that going down a tweaking route has high chances of leading to better results, and maybe that's part of my contention with Biodom (and even you part of the time).  There are some times in which any of us could end up being guilty of overthinking matters and trying to maximize our number of sats per dollar, and in those circumstances, we may well have been way the fuck better off just to buy regularly and try not to over think the matter because we hardly have any clue and perhaps we perceive that overall the BTC price is overall down relatively speaking, even if that is only 30% down that ends up going down further to 80% down, but we had already considered that 30% down was good BTC prices but we end up kicking ourselves because we blew all of our load and it ends up that we should have saved some dry powder for further down.

When we fuck up and we run out of money, some folks start to think that they might be better of selling a little bit of BTC,^** even though the BTC price is at historical low levels because they think they are going to get a bargain and be able to buy back at lower prices, and surely, we can agree to disagree about these kinds of considerations regarding how much of a good idea that it might be to sell BTC on the way down merely because we might have concluded that we fucked up at a earlier time by either buying too much on the way down or failing/refusing to sell at higher prices or failing/refusing to sell on the way up.

**Actually, I should note that I have no reason to NOT believe Biodom when he says that he has not been engaging in practices to trade and strategically sell his BTC, even though I understand that he is considering such sales practices for in the future and on the way up.. so I don't have any problem with the consideration or employment of such practices of selling on the way up.... Also, I am not trying to be overly judgemental in regards to a variety of practices that involve selling some BTC along the way and taking off some risk at various points, even if some of that might be on the way down (or not on the way up), and even an approach that recognizes/appreciates that fuck ups had been made, so in order to avoid getting totally reckt financially/psychologically, sometimes it is better to take some off of the table, even if there might be some losses involved - and perhaps not going as far as the pickle that mindrust had gotten himself into, and it seems that a lot of mindrust's mistakes were similar to some of the mistakes that had been made by some of the BIG players in 2022 who had made bets that the BTC price would not go below a certain price such as below the 200-week moving average in 2022 (or sustainably so), and in Mindrust's case his likely consideration that $6k-ish was a kind of bottom that had been visited so many tijmes that it was not going to break and then his seemingly unreasonable belief that once it was broken that BTC prices were going to go below $2k or some dumbass number that he was gambling on.. just like some of the sub $20k BTC sellers, this  time around were considering sub $10k or at least something in the $12k price arena as something close to inevitable, which is now showing itself for being pretty damned close to ridiculous, even though we have current trolls like Save the RF who seems to believe that $10k is back on the table.. blah blah blah.. don't be listening to delusional twats like that.. just like mindrust was listening to Masterluc.. or some similar ideas/sorcerer wannabes.

So some of these practices can become confusing and even overthought, which frequently in those kinds of circumstances there is likely a decent amount of value to just suck it up and to DCA.. so who the fuck cares if you have some dumb ass theory that lump sum used to be good and now DCA is better blah blah blah.. when the fact of the matter BTC has always been a good investment as long as your investment time horizon has been long enough.. such as 4-10 years or longer and the longer the better and the more you invested into BTC (in a kind of aggressive/assertive way) at earlier times, then the more likely that you are doing well (better) too, especially compared to someone who might be still building their BTC position because they fucked up earlier by failing/refusing to be sufficiently aggressive/assertive.

I am not the ONLY one who seems to have a pretty seemingly solid theory that almost any of us whether normie or otherwise is going to be able to be way the fuck more aggressive/assertive in terms of our BTC investing (accumulation) approach when we DCA (or we do not blow the whole wadd in one shot) than if we engage in lump sum investing, unless we happen to get lucky in terms of when we had made our lump sum buy and we did not screw up in other ways.. so even the earlier example of Michael Saylor shows that he had pretty much hit the ball out of the park with his earliest of lump sum investing, but then on a psychological (or perhaps retrospective) perspective, he come to believe that he had not bought enough.. so he kept fucking buying and buying and buying.. so that he diluted the average cost of his earlier lump sum buys.. and sure, no problem with any of that, because as long as he does not get purged out of his BTC buys, he likely is going to be quite a bit better off by being aggressive and buying more BTC, even if his average cost per BTC had gone up by 3x from right around $10k per BTC to around $30k per BTC... but instead of having 30k BTC he has something like 130k BTC... and yeah, the way that he holds his BTC (his company's BTC) is not exactly direct nor unencumbered, but still, there seems to be decent chances that his more aggressive stance (even though raising his average cost per BTC x 3) is likely going to be judged well by history (no guarantees, of course), so I am not even sure what point that makes in terms of lump sum versus DCA, but it does have some support for the idea of the value of aggressiveness/assertiveness in terms of BTC stash accumulation/management and also probably suggest to be as assertive/aggressive as you can without putting ur lil selfie into such a position that you are going to have your BTC taken from you... or that you are forced to have to sell any or all of them at a time that is other than your own choosing.. and preferably in some state of profits rather than at a loss (discretionary items in terms of how to play some of the matters so long as you are not forced into some position that you had over done it with gambling rather than reasonable/prudent forethought).

Wow!!!!!!

I recall seeing the below back and forth discussion between you and Ibminer on the BPIP thread:


But I did not really understand the significance what you guys were talking about - until I just clicked on the Hollydarkness link that you provided above, and then I see that such link is available in the trust portion on each of the profiles..  .. very powerful and easy to access. .. thanks for coordinating (and following up) with Ibminer to make sure such link to trust page feature is now available on BPIP.

That's actually a decently good clip... in which it is being pointed out that some of the status quo rich are pretty dumb when it comes to bitcoin.. even though people like to look up to the status quo rich as if they were experts because they are rich.. but what else is new? 

We have all kinds of misinformation out there, including some smart people who seem to know a lot of things, but then they keep talking about crypto whatever the fuck that is?  So some of the pundits might get everything right, but then some of those who are criticizing the status quo rich still fail to correct the record sufficiently enough to use the word bitcoin rather than allowing the word crypto to be used in an unchecked / unclarified kind of way, too... although the word bitcoin was still used in that little 20 second clip.


You are still a bit bearish (maybe shell shocked), and nothing wrong with that.. .there is some good in having conservative scenarios and being pleasantly surprised if the upside ends up playing out, and of course, I personally do not play my finances and/or my psychology in such a way that I need to get high returns in order to feel financially and psychologically comfortable in regards to where BTC prices ended up going (as compared with where they were anticipated to go).


I have some difficulties in trying to figure out "when to start" bitcoin price dynamics too.  I tend to default to something like 2012 or 2013, but still there are problems with those starting dates too, but at least bitcoin had established somewhat of a price on a variety of exchanges by that time versus some of the very difficult times of trying to get BTC in 2010 and 2011 and who the fuck even knew about bitcoin in 2010 and 2011 besides Jimbo.. hahahahaha

So it seems that in these relatively early days of bitcoin there are always going to be ways to attempt to frame the matter in such a way that it just seems unrealistic to be comparing current possibilities to earlier possibilities, but that seems to both be part of the nature of ongoing s-curve exponential adoption and the seemingly way that the BTC price plays out.. so some of the financial tools have become more sophisticated too, but it is likely in future cycles that we are going to have bigger institutions and more governments getting involved in actual bitcoin investing even more overtly than they might be doing now.. even though it seems that institutional getting involved in bitcoin is still likely pretty low, even if they are doing it covertly and even if they are fucking around with paper bitcoin and various financial instruments that ended up fucking some of them in recent times.

I still think that it is fair to go back to 2012/2013 as a starting point, even though it is true that we get more involvement and more sophisticated financial instruments, but a lot of the craziness likely gets sorted out in the wash. .and some of the same patterns from as early as 2012/2013 are likely to continue to exist and persist, even though the players are BIGGER now... and there have been changes in BTC too.. .. but in the end, there is a lack of evidence to really argue that now is different and that we need to start from a more mature market (such as 2018) because no one knew what bitcoin was prior to that. blah blah blah.. and I am just not convinced.. even though I don't really mind cutting out 2010 and 2011 - even though bitcoin started to have a price in mid-2010-ish..

Poor widdo tingilie.. no doesn't have no cornz.  

Sucks to be uie-pooie...

dumb and all of that to boot...

By the way, you should know better than that..  
1st of all.. never go full fiat.. you dumb twat...
second.. you are selling BTC and the price is still below the 200-week moving average, and even if you are trolling us with your proclamations of $10k-ish, it is getting more difficult to have confidence that the bottom is not already in.. with our $15,479.. so.. you might have troubles, even if your worser case scenario plays out to get coins even sub $20k or even sub $18k, or whatever pie in the sky visions that you are setting forth..

third I recall you talked this kind of dumb talk previously too (like 2017/2018).. and gosh you must have gotten reckt pretty badly back then too;.. so history repeats itself, no?  over and over and over again, and some folks never seem to learn, right? 


right? 




riiiiiiiigggghhhhttt?







Yes normies tend to do these kinds of things.. with frequency.. and several variations of similar kinds of scenarios in which they have difficulties figuring out how to employ lump sum in a good kind of way and then they end up doing way too much at the wrong time.. and then having no back up plan..

Hey from my point of view, there would have been nothing wrong with your friend to have had divided his/her $100k into three parts, and then Lump sum with 1/3, and then set the other 2/3 with buying on dips and DCA.. s/he still would have run out of money on the way down to $20k, but still lowered cost per BTC with a likely better psychology.... and then another question is whether there might have been some cashflow that would have continued to come in over the last year and a y half?  Something like $100 per week to continue to buy or at least to strategize what to do with the $100 per week that might have had been coming in during the last year and a half or so.


I doubt that Saylor is a good example to argue in terms of supporting either way, and sure we can Monday morning quarter-back him and pick out areas in which he did well and other areas in which he seemed to have had screwed up.. .. but overall, I don't even think that he represents anything that bad.. but this is what people or institutions do.. which seems to be part of your point, hisslyness.

Saylor started out in July/August 2020 with several lump sum buys, but then he was kind of buying regularly in such a way that those lump sums really ended up being a kind of DCA.. because he was buying at any price, but then at some point, he seemed to realize that he was running out of money so he could not buy as frequently, but he has not stopped buying... so he is a bit of a strange duck that is difficult to apply to normies in the sense that he seemed to have had started out good by having quite a few BTC buys in the $10k price arena.. but then he just kept going and even doubling down at higher prices, which seems almost more deranged than what normies might do, but he still was acting within the confines of experimenting with pushing leverage of what a public company could do.. a public company with pretty decent assets and also pretty decent profitable cashflow too.


You are not really making any kind of special case that Lump sum is better than DCA, Biodom, - even though you are seeming to make the case that time in the market it better than timing the market, and you also seem to be making the case that aggressiveness pays off when it comes to BTC investing, which seems to be a wee bit contradictory to my understanding of your own personal whimpiness (nohomo) history when it comes to BTC and the various points in which you expressed scaredy-kittycattedness in the years that I have known uie-pooie...

You were especially scaredy kitty catty prior to 2020-ish.. It seems that you have ONLY recently been expressing ur lil selfie a wee bit more bullishly.. and yeah, sure you were somewhat conservative in regards to our 2021 top.. but you were not so confident as to enter a bet with yours truly on the topic.. which it seems that I would have lost that bet, but part of the point is that you weaseled out of such bet negotiations (to the extent that you could have even had been taken seriously) and you were not willing to commit to the absolutist terms that you had been expressing in terms of "we are not going there" blah blah blah.

I am not against any of the accumulation strategies to get normies in the door, so in that sense I have been given a bad rap (and mischaracterized as if I ONLY give any shits about DCA - even though I proclaim that DCA is the best of the strategies to get normie newbies started.. otherwise they won't.. otherwise they will panic.. otherwise they will buy at the top and sell at the bottom).

So part of my point is that DCA (or some variations of DCA) allows normie newbies to also invest way more aggressively over a long period of time, as compared to someone who is some what scared about how to time the market and ONLY ends up buying one time in 2015 and waits for his (more or less 20) coins to go up to $10 million each, and if he had been DCA'ing all along, he would have probably bought way more coins and he also probably would have spent way more money per coin.. but in the long run, he is better off because he spent $47k and got around 45 BTC rather than spending ONLY about $6k and getting 20 BTC or perhaps spending $20k and getting 30 BTC.  

There are a lot of variations of how the comparisons of the whimpy versus the more persistent investor could play out for sure, but part of my attempted point remains that an ongoing DCA'ing strategy helps someone (normie newbie) to pay attention, learn along the way and perhaps begin to supplement his/her ongoing BTC accumulation strategy with buy on dips and various lump sum buys as s/he gets more comfortable... I am not all or nothing into DCA, even though I consider it to be amongst the best (if not the best) of starting strategies for normie newbies.


Part of the problem is that you continue to fail/refuse to even attempt to make realistic apples to apples comparisons.. just like that article did too.

I started to respond with specifics, but it seems like a fucking waste of time, and you just want to presume your conclusion and to act as if a DCA system is just inferior for a newbie normie.. so why continue to waste time on this.. you can believe what you like with your selective pie in the sky renditions..



There's no reason to raise money first.

Yeah, get your finances in order, but most people already have some ballpark idea about their budget whether their income exceeds their expenses and whether they can afford $100 per week or if they might ONLY be able to afford $10 week until figuring out their finances and psychology.



Maybe we should hug?



Why not both?



We are not even talking about buying shitcoins.  Focus.  If you started buying in January 2014, between January 2014 and late 2016, you would have gotten anywhere between 0.1 BTC and even close to 0.5 BTC for $100, depending on when you bought... so if there were 306 weeks during that period, you could have  spent weekly or you could have tried to be strategic about saving up for certain points in time to buy your chunks.  Once you establish some BTC you are likely in a better place than merely waiting.. but hey if you want to wait, then all the more power to you.  After the fact, you can see where the better buying opportunities were between 2014 and 2016, but in the whole scheme of things, if you did the vast majority of your investing during that time, is it going to really make a whole hell of a lot of difference if your average per BTC was $300 versus if it was $1k per BTC, and maybe you got a lower average per BTC, but does not necessarily mean that you were as aggressive in your BTC buying... so maybe you end up with 20-25BTC that you got on average for less than $500, but the guy with 40-50 BTC may well be better off, even if he ended up paying close to $1k per BTC...

actually I just looked it up, and DCAing between January 2014 and December 2014, still gives you less than $400 per BTC... are you going to beat that with lump summing?. invest $15,700, get 40 BTC..  You think that your lumpsumming is going to beat that? and still allow you to be as aggressive, persistent and steadfast?  I doubt it.. that's why you ONLY got 20 BTC during that period, even though you ONLY spent $6k, too.. but are you better off with that approach?  Maybe for you, but what about a generally applicable approach?


Sounds like you are arguing backwards to me.  Between January 2014 and December 2016 how many times would you have made those lump sum investments into BTC rather than DCAing throughout that period?  Once per year?  and when specifically?  how do you know?  how do you make a general applicable principle/system for normies that is even fucking close to DCA?  Yeah, any of us can get a wee of a bit of an inclination for when a dip is happening or when the BTC price is going up, but we still have hardly no fucking clue about if the dip is going to stop dipping or if the Uppity is going to reverse.. so that leaves us back with the dilemas regarding when exactly and how much and DCA provides some answers to that which relates to the Nike slogan.. "just do it!!!"  something like that.   

Normie newies have almost no clue about whether BTC is in a dip or not, until they spend a considerable amount of time studying bitcoin, and many of us longer term folks have hardly any fucking clue either.. regarding if the BTC price is going to go up or down from where we are at.

One thing that you do know is how much of a budget that you have and whether you can afford to invest $100 per week, or if you only have enough to do $10 per  week or if there might be some other suitable amount.

Another thing that any of us should be able to figure out is what we want to be our investment target in terms of the other portions of our investment portfolio and other particulars related to us.. if we feel kind of whimpy then we might ONLY invest towards the bottom of the starter investment range which would be around 1%, and if we feel more bullish about bitcoin, then we might want to start out attempting to get to 25%.. and of course, if we study the space as long as it takes us to attempt to reach whatever target that we have, we might change our target or even start to adopt more advance techniques that include buying on the dip and lump sum investing.. and combining all three.. and we might even get to fuck you status or learn how to figure out what fuck you status is in terms of longer term ideas rather than fluctuations in spot price, including if we might consider that it is better to get in and out of bitcoin or if we might consider bitcoin as a longer investment that might help us to get to fuck you status when we might not otherwise have had considered it to be possible to get to fuck you status.


You can be whatever you want, right?

 

Even though your further post (OOM) clarifies some aspects of your points MOAR better, I am not going to chime in any further... unless provoked.


Well.  Think about it.

If you have a budget in which you have already figured out that you have an extra $100 per week that you could buy bitcoin, and that has been your situation since January 2014.  You could choose to buy right away as your money comes in or you could attempt to employ your buying of BTC at strategic times and there have been about 470 weeks - if you use 9 years as your investing timeline.  To me, I don't mind weekly buys, but sure there could be arguments for fewer than 470 buys, but I would not be so much of an advocate of 4,000 buys in a 9 year period of time.

So maybe you have a system that you think might be better than buying weekly.. especially if you are starting out with zero bitcoin and you are considering building a stash out of your $47k that only comes to be available at $100 per week, unless you have some other reasonable variation of the hypothetical that you might want to consider.

Do you want to consider that in January 2014, you were already starting with an investment portfolio of $100k (but none of that was in bitcoin).. would that change your approach towards getting a position in bitcoin?  What would be your allocation target?  I doubt that it is really very controversial, but there is discretion regarding what method you believe might work best for you, if you had happened to have been a newbie normie in January 2014 with a $100 per week budget that you could invest into bitcoin and then what about for other newbie normies who might find their lil selfies in a similar situation?.

If you prefer to use your own forum registration date of August 30, 2016 as the investment starting date, then sure that could be possible to work from that date, which would ONLY give us around 6.5 years (or 338 weeks to work with), but hey, no reasons to NOT be flexible in possible scenarios or potential hypotheticals... though $100 per week since August 30, 2016 would ONLY get you around 7.66BTC with $33.8k invested. We should be able to work with that... anything greater than 3-4 years becomes more and more workable.. regarding what would you have done and why and what should others do (such as a newbie normie)?

I stand by my points.

You are not making any new points, and you are also refusing to actually either work with the actual hypothetical that's in front of us (which is the $100 per week income starting from January 2014) or to provide specifics regarding at which point in time extra lump sum dollar amounts would be available (at the beginning of the investment period or at various points in the middle).

You are also failing/refusing to deal with my already concession that the more sophisticated that you are (or the more time that you have to study the matter), then the more likely you can tweak to improve upon a strict DCA approach by employing lump sum buying and or buying on dips.

In other words, you seem to be making up your own bullshit, attributing false issues to me and then saying:  "lookie, lookie, I am the winner" blah blah blah.. It's not that I don't even like you, but you surely are not grappling with the actual employment of a system or attempting to make fair, reasonable and practical comparative applications with anything more than vague innuendos.. with some kind of seeming maniacal obsession of wanting to be right no matter what.. .

Nothing wrong with figuring out how to employ your strategies and deploy your capital in ways to supplement DCA.. If you read my earlier responsive post, you should see that I am not unfriendly to either lump summing and buying on dips to supplement DCA, but you cannot forget about the power of DCA.. even if you have a lump sum at your disposal.

Let's say that you are somewhat new to BTC, and you have a $100k investment portfolio that you already established.  So you have become convinced that some kind of a medium appropriation into bitcoin would be warranted, and so you saw JJG's (or whoever's) suggestion to consider anywhere between 1% and 25% as your starting point, so you decided (you are responsible for your own decision) to allocate 12.5% to BTC.. So if you do it right away, that 12.5% is $12,500, and if you reallocate and lump sum into bitcoin right away, then you are taking that $12,500 from some other areas of your portfolio that might have tax consequences and even other consequences that might concern you in regards to financial and psychological difficulties in terms of doing it all at once.

Instead, you figured out a way that you could be more aggressive and establish your stake into bitcoin over 6 months or over 12 months.. and frankly you are much more comfortable in your ability to achieve such reallocation target in 12 months without having to suffer as much financially and/or psychologically.  Think about it.  There are a variety of factors, and sure you might have various assets that are allocated in such a way that you are not going to have tax consequences and you might even be able to liquidate some of your various assets, but the more that you try to create lump sums that are "available to uie pooie, the more that you are fucking with the hypothetical, because they hypothetical ONLY gives you $100 per week of cashflow that is coming in that would be available.. in order to attempt to figure out matters.. and yeah, maybe you inherited some money and you got a bonus, you closed a deal blah blah blah.   

So yeah, just like you said, there are ways that not only do you have a lump sum that has come available, it also is available in cash right now... yet even if you read my previous post and had understood what I was saying (which seems that you did not), you would still see that I had already suggested that a presumption would be to divide your surprise $12k lump sum that became available to you into three parts which would be 1/3 in DCA, 1/3 lump sum right away buying and 1/3 into buying on dips.  Sure, as an adult with full discretion, you could choose to allocate differently with that $12k that comes available to you, and you read the study and you decide that it is best to put it all in right away without delay.. and surely, I am not unsympathetic to those kinds of leanings, because for sure currently, we are in a situation in which BTC prices are just barely testing the 200-week moving average, but they had been quite a distance below the 200-week moving average (even 35% below the 200-week moving average) for more than 8 months, so you are speaking to the choir to some extent when you are telling me that we are at historical low price point and that lump sum might well perform way the fuck better than DCA during times like this... but still even though I consider myself to be a normie in several ways, I am not any kind of normal normie when it comes to bitcoin since I have had my eyes glued to charts for more than 9 years and reading (and battling) on the topic for more than 9 years too... but is a newbie normie going to feel confident enough to put 100% of their purported $12k of surprise new cash into lump sum rather than allocating some of that value to DCA and buying on dips?  I question those kinds of presumptions regarding what is a "newbie" normie.. .. that's for sure.

Yeah.. but you still failed/refused to either stick with the actual hypothetical or to change it with some kinds of specifics.

Therefore, you have not addressed the issue.  $100 per week budget starting from January 2014.  When are you going to spend those building up $100 per week amounts?  What are your striking points for your various purchases over the past 470 weeks, starting from January 2014?  

I am not saying that you won't do better because you are smarter than the normal normie.. however, we not talking about smart fucks like uie-pooie..  We are attempting to refer to a potential application of some kind of a principle that can generally be applicable to normies that would be better than DCA..

Come on.  Go ahead.  


Do it.

Do it


Do it!!!!




Give us some guidelines beyond vaguely suggesting that it could be possible to beat DCA if you happen to have 100hours per week to dedicate to study the matter.. blah blah blah.. so fucking what.. you beat DCA and you got 22 BTC rather than 20 BTC (with the same amount of dollar value put into it) but you spent 100 hours per week doing it.  Do normies have that amount of time and abilities and are they smart enough?  


I say:























NOT!!!!!!!    






That's why start with DCA first as the default mode.. and then.. if you got's ur lil selfie some "special skills, abilities and circumstances" then you can start to branch out while keeping the basics, the foundations and the starting principles in mind... stay humble and stack sats.. blah blah blah.. matt odell

That looks somewhat reasonable.. but I had frequently been considering that bitcoin is likely around 1,000x more valuable than gold, and that chart ONLY shows bitcoin as being around 20x more valuable than gold.

Also, there is no reason that over time, bitcoin would not end up absorbing all of the monetary value of the various assets that are listed.  It does not mean that those listed assets, lose their value, but that bitcoin absorbs the monetary/speculative value.. but it seems that Croesus had already attempted to account for reasonable numbers there.  

Not easy to argue with those numbers, even though I had been considering bitcoin as 1,000x of gold and also had been considering bitcoin to be able to accede up to $1 quadrillion in value in today's dollars which is kind of presuming that more value is created just because of bitcoin is opening up value creation possibilities that are not currently conceived of but come into being the more and more that bitcoin is adopted and put into practice... but even with bitcoin at a quadrillion dollars and absorbing all of the monetary value, from that chart, it shows bitcoin would ONLY be worth 100x the value of gold at its theoretical max, even though I like to say bitcoin is 1,000x the value of gold.. I suppose another way of getting there would be to suggest that gold is only worth $1 trillion rather than being worth $12 trillion, and that would suggest that by the time we really get down to the value of gold and shave out its monetary premium, then its industrial, jewelry value would thereafter ONLY be worth $1 trillion and bitcoin would be worth $1 quadrillion.. and sure even that seems like a stretch from Croesus's statement of facts regarding current monetary value.


That fork is just a fantasy... desire to create drama where no drama exists.

Bitcoin is not going to fork merely because some people (even influential OG bitcoiners) are "upset" (or "mad as hell") about dickbutts on the blockchain... they cannot do anything about it.  Dumb fucks.. (am I calling Adam Back, Luke Dasher, Jimmy Song, Tuur Demeester dumb/emotional fucks?   oh what blasphemy!!  Where is satoshi?  is he a scared-cat too? speaking of cats)


Yes... I had similar thoughts regarding some price points being missing or inaccurate in terms of what BTC prices might have been doing during that time, which also begs the question regarding methodology for the numbers that are depicted (to the extent that they matter, or are representative of anything important or that they might just be contributing to meaningless clutter.. or showing various inaccuracies based on their seemingly incoherent presentation)

None of that negates any of the points that I had been making... Yes, we know that lump sum will beat DCA so long as you buy in a dipping period as compared to buying in a peaking period, so what else is new?

Part of the issue for any normie remains whether they have a lump sum to invest in the first place, which an overwhelming majority of normies do not have any lump sum.. The best that they have is either figuring out their cashflow and getting started or alternatively going into debt (in order to establish a lump sum to start with), and I doubt that it is usually going to be a good idea to go into debt in order to buy a risky asset (such as bitcoin) unless you otherwise have your cashflow in order, which by definition is no longer the typical situation for the overwhelming majority of normies.. that's part of what makes a normie a normie in the first place.. fucked up finances and lack of much of any savings/investment.

So tell me, bitebits, are you wanting to get into the fray?

Are you working against the hypothetical or wanting to create your own fantasy set of facts that may or may not be typical of where normies are at in terms of their cashflow options and their psychology too?

I am not even completely against changing the hypothetical in order to allow that a person getting into bitcoin 9 years ago (let's say the beginning of 2014) might not have already had an investment portfolio of something like $50k or perhaps even $100k, but our working hypothetical was attempting to presume starting from zero, and deciding to get into bitcoin with an investment budget of around $100 per week.. that gets you $5,200 in a year or $47k in 9 years, but it does not get you the $100 per week before the week happens, so sure, for example in the first year, such normie investor could choose NOT to get into bitcoin at all, and ONLY watch and attempt to time the market.. and therefore by the time the next year comes, January 2015, he has $5,200 in front of him, and he can invest that $5,200 at that time.. but really is that realistic?  Put yourself into the situation.  Are you going to hear about bitcoin in early 2014, know that you want to invest, wait for a year while your $100 per week is building up, and then pounce on the bottom in January 2015?  Sounds like a bit of a fantasy, and dealing with some other kind of person that is not a normie...

Normies no don't work like that.  And, part of the reason that DCA works so fucking well for normies, is that it requires way the fuck less thinking.

I am not even suggesting that other approaches to accumulating BTC are not good.  I already suggest that DCA is the best of the three methods, but DCA can be supplemented with lump sum investing and buying on dips, which means that we might start with a default position that includes some kind of equal proportioning.. so if we start out with $12,000 in cash that would also supplement our $100 per week, then we might want to divide that $12k into three categories of consideration that involves DCA, lump sum and buying on dips, and the extent to which we deviate from 1/3 in each of the three categories would depend upon our own particular financial and psychological circumstances that should involve considering: our cashflow, how much bitcoin we have already accumulated, our other investments, our view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, timeline, risk tolerance, and our time, skills, goals (investment/lifestyle targets) and our abilities to strategize, plan, research and learn along the way including tweaking strategies from time to time to consider trading, reallocating, use of leverage and/or financial instruments.

The basics include DCA as the strongest of those tools to get the fuck started and don't be dickering around.. and of course, if we have a lump sum of cash to work with then we have more options than most normies who largely have to get the fuck off zero, get started with something and then as they build their position they can figure out if some kind of a more hybrid or personally tailored approach might work better, otherwise fuck lump summing as the starting strategy towards getting to richie status in BTC because all it causes is mental masterbaters, bitcoin naysayers, market timers, shitcoiners, fence sitters gamblers.. and perhaps some other negative categories of folks who fail/refuse to get the fuck started in their BTC investment/learning journey.  #justsaying

I cannot really argue with your attempt to make some kind of comparisons how BTC price could do both flat and stair-stepping moves in the next 10 years or longer, but it is still somewhat of an inadequate way to really attempt to consider what bitcoin is as a new paradigm shifting asset class.  Whether we are talking about gold in the last 120 years or even talking about it in the past 30-50 years, like you want to do, gold was not a new asset class at that time, even though gold was being pigeon-holed into new financial instruments and there were various ways that gold was being suppressed and simultaneously being sent to the USA ("for safe keeping") and other national adoption dynamics between WWII and the 1971 rug pull.. and even somewhat allowances to have free market value while being "paperized" thereafter.

It seems problematic to be attempting to make too many parallel comparisons with what bitcoin might do as compared to what gold had done in part because bitcoin is around 1,000x better than gold - but also there are some attributes of bitcoin that causes a lot of difficulties for various powers that be to be able to manipulate bitcoin in the same kinds of ways that they had been able to manipulate gold - and I am not even saying that they are not going to try old methods or to attempt to be able to innovate, but lots of the powers that be manipulator wannabes seem to be a bit out of their depth if they really believe that they are going to either be creative enough to manipulate BTC in similar ways or that they even understand the powers of the ability to verify bitcoin quite easily and to take possession quite easily in order to put wrong doers, and manipulators into check.. Sure they can make paper markets and attempt to cause BTC holders to believe that some of the entities are holding BTC, but still there are ways to verify - and one of the ways is to just remove your coins from custodians and refuse to enter into contracts with custodians that force you to not be able to take possession, and governments are likely to get their lil selfies into trouble if they try to force the use of custodians when there are already ways that normies are able to hold their own BTC.. without asking for any possession..

So part of my point is that even if none of us are really able to have concrete ideas where bitcoin is going and how the various wars and battles are going to play out - including whether if "strong-arm" legislators (& perhaps banks too) are going to end up forcing BTC into "other jurisdictions," each of us has to be careful if we are trying to make too many comparisons of bitcoin to some of the other assets that might share some features and use cases, but in the end they are different asset classes with differing price dynamics, including a different historical context.

Even if stock to flow might be in low regard, I still consider that his model still helps us to appreciate bitcoin, even if maybe the curve needs to be shifted down, so using the three main bitcoin models of the 1) stock-to-flow, 2) 4-year fractal and 3) exponential scurve adoption based on Netcalfe principles and network effects still remain a better way of thinking about how bitcoin retains cycles with a kind of ongoing underlying explosive potentials that continue to put UPpity price pressures upon it, even if various status quo rich individuals/institutions of manipulators, legislators, and financial folks are fighting to both keep it down or stop it from going out.. and sure maybe they are going to be able to continue to have some success in keeping it down.. but I would not bank on the success of those efforts or the success to keep my lil precious in some kind of neat container that fails/refuses to explode UPpity from time to time with such power that it melts faces or whatever kind of contrary to expectations scenarios that we prefer to visualize.

Regarding your personal expectations of a 10-year investment timeline, you can do whatever the fuck you want.  It's your life; however, it seems a bit strange to be investing with any kind of level of building and/or accumulation of a position with a 10 year timeline for anyone who is 66 years old, so in that sense, what you are saying that you are doing is likely not even  really what you are doing.  By age itself, you likely already realize that you have to take a less aggressive position.. You are forced into a situation in which you have funds that you can live off of.. and that you have some expectation that you might not be able to generate extra cashflow from work... otherwise what you going to do?  Slave until you die?  You should be winding down by now, and the ONLY reason anyone is going to be expecting cashflow from work when they are in their 60s or later would be that they are recognizing that they failed/refused to adequately prepare prior to that.

Maybe your situation becomes so difficult to argue because it is somewhat particular.. but it just seems problematic for anyone who is 66 years old to be suggesting a 10 year investing timeline, and it seems to me that you were even more realistic earlier (a couple of years ago) when you said something about your having a 5-year investment timeline.. I don't want to go back and search for the post.. but still.

Maybe one way of making sense out of what you are saying would be to suggest that BTC is something that you are merely doing on the side, and that you already have the rest of your investment portfolio (including that you are already drawing from it) in place.  You know many retirement systems (in the USA) force withdrawal methods that are at least 4% per year starting from when the retiree is 72.5 years old... so any money that you have into those kinds of systems will have some forced withdrawal.  I don't even want to get into all of this...that have to do with cashflow issues, but sometimes, there still might be some needs  to consider if all living expenses are covered by various sources that are coming in (various kinds of pensions, social security, 401k and some of those have some preset amounts that are just part of covering cashflow), and there could be investments in property, equities, commodities and bonds that do not have presets, so there is ongoing discretion regarding withdrawing from them, and even liquidating all or part of them, and yeah the portion of your mining business might be considered part of that.. whether you were to have it set up as a asset that generates income without much of any efforts from you or if you are even able to retain any passive holding into it.. but seems that your agreement requires you to do some work in order to retain the current interest that you have... and maybe it is not that much work.. and like you said earlier, you enjoy "keeping busy."

In some sense, I feel like throwing up my hands, yet if we are trying to discuss these kinds of matters in general applicability ways, then we do not necessarily need to get into too many details - in order to recognize that ways that any of us invest when we are in our 20s is going to differ from when we are in our 40s or in our 60s, but it just seems unrealistic to be talking about our 60s as if we have a 10-year investing timeline.. . .it's just off and doesn't seem like a good general way of talking about how anyone in their 60s generally might be considering these kinds of matters.. unless we might just be saying that Bitcoin happens to be some smaller portion of what we are doing (or systems that we already have in place).

Maybe I can give a bit of an example to attempt to particularize some of my frustration when dealing with the elderly?  I have at least a couple of relatives who currently are in their mid-70s, and I had been having similar conversations with at least a couple of these relatives of similar age categories since about 2014-2016, so each of the relatives would have been in their mid 60s at the time of my earlier conversations about bitcoin, so I had never really changed my perspective, and I used to consider that you need at least a 4-10 year investment timeline with bitcoin, so usually when accounting for their age, I would kind of bow out of any kind of aggressiveness/assertiveness in attempting to tell them that they "need to be 'in bitcoin' " because I was worried about their abilities to really dedicate some value into bitcoin that they can mostly NOT obsess about whether it is liquid or not for at least 4-10 years... and I also used to recommend getting the fuck off zero, so an allocation of between 1% and 10% into bitcoin.  

More recently (since sometimes after March 2020), as a general applicability idea, I upped my "get off zero" from 1% to 10% to a more aggressive (less whimpy) 1% to 25%, and at the same time, I started to feel that I could still recommend bitcoin to elderly folks, while proclaiming that they would just need to gravitate more towards the lower end of my recommendation spectrum, rather than NOT investing into bitcoin... So in some sense, I started to tell everyone, unless you see some immediate need for cash and you have various other investments, to get some bitcoin, even if you have to gravitate more towards the 1% rather than 10% or 25% that you might have done when you were younger.

So part of my point is that I am not against elderly folks investing into bitcoin, but based on timeline, the elderly have to end up gravitating more towards the lower end of the investment spectrum and should not be talking about their investment timeline as if they were in their 20s if they actually are in their 60s.. Elderly folks are forced (or should be forced, kicking and screaming) to invest less aggressively into bitcoin because they need to retain higher levels of liquidity (or potential for liquidity) than anyone in their younger years.. and the need for liquidity might kick in for other reasons (such as health or even just uncertainties in cashflow based on the kind of skills a person has. .in terms of his/her ability to earn money through work.. and yeah, other financial expense that could be part of someone's current status)... So, even if a mid-to-late 60s person can do whatever the fuck they like with their own finances, especially if they have adequately examined their own particulars, sometimes their choices are  not really going to be very typical (or applicable) for the overwhelming majority of 60 year olds who are likely getting into winding down stages of their finances (or maintanence) rather than much if any emphasis on accumulating positions.. especially in a potentially risky asset and especially if there could be situations in which they are not really able to project 4-10 years into the future, even if they are engaging in such seemingly irresponsible (pie in the sky) projecting that seems to be based on "best case scenarios" gonna live until 94.5 years and banging 10s all the way..  blah blah blah.

In the ballpark of 100%, since we are already there.


Part of the problem seems to be that you come off as if you are describing some kind of a stable BTC price, and we know that bitcoin does not work like that... and maybe it would "feel" better if you were referring to possible future BTC price bottoms, but just describing it as if it were some kind of a reasonable/serious expectation (or a kind of "base case") makes you seem a wee bit "anti-bitcoin".... even if that doesn't really seem to be your intention...


Are you a spook?   


Noise, no?

Even though those numbers seem bearish, they are kind of the way that I like to consider my investments too.. .. so the more conservative would be 6% per year (which yeah is 106% per year).. yet I do also think that we can get away with something like 10% to 12% if we use the 200-week moving average, and reality will likely out perform that... Reality is likely to outperform your 1.2x per year too.. but it does not hurt to be conservative when it comes to assessing the likely future value of your wealth (investment portfolio).. ..

Yet when it comes to bitcoin, I don't see any reason to be rejiggering it every year, so even if there was a relatively conservative investment scenario when I got into bitcoin in 2013, so if my then investment portfolio was $100k, and so maybe I might have decided to invest up to 10% into bitcoin but then I got carried away and got up to something like 13% or 14% into bitcoin, and maybe I did not even do very well, and so I ended up ONLY getting 13.5 BTC out of the whole deal at an average cost of $1k per BTC... .So my regular investment portfolio might have gone up around 80% to 90% in the last 9 years, and if we want to be generous, then maybe we could say that it doubled and went from $100k to $200k.. yet how much is 13.5 BTC worth right now?  Right around $318,600 (using a BTC price of $23,600).. which would mean that my total investment portfolio might be worth around $518,600, and thus 61.5% of my investment portfolio is in BTC.. I am not necessarily fucking around with it... but allowing it to grow and attempting to be prudent about it and not drawing from the profitable portions of my overall holdings.. which has been the BTC portion of my holdings.

There are ways that BTC can be very powerful, even if we fuck up in a variety of ways, as long as we are mostly aiming towards holding and/or building our BTC and perhaps when we get to a certain point we strive that our bitcoin stash does not shrink below certain portions - even though by its own price appreciation, relative to the rest of our investments, it seems to have had been growing way better than our other investments... and even though there are no guarantees, there still seems to be fairly strong investment thesis in regards to bitcoin to suggest that bitcoin is quite likely to continue to outperform our various other investments, even if we might ONLY assign it relatively low future value approximations.. ...and sure we can project out a variety of scenarios in which some of them are more bearish and conservative, such as 6%, 12% or 20% per year or maybe some others might be more medium optimistic such as 1.5x to 4x per year.. and maybe others might even be more optimistic, such as 100x in one or two years and not really knowing if or whether such a blow off top BTC price performance might come, even though we have seen such BTC price performance happenings historically and there is nothing really ruling them out, except just attempting to NOT be overly optimistic.. while still realizing that we can ot be overrealistic but still prepared for such upside possibilities that "could" end up happening.. which includes our taking whimpy actions in which we sabotage our lil selfies from benefiting from upside BTC scenarios because we invest in crap that we know is likely to lose value.. such as the dollar and maybe even several other dollar dependent investments.


"pro-reality"


hahahahahahaha

Who cannot be "for" that?


 


Which goes to show that Philip's scenario is not really very likely.. even though it can be used as a kind of "worser case" scenario.. not as if it were a "likely scenario."... some people invest into bitcoin as if it were the base case and think of no other scenario.. and then fail/refuse to prepare for other possible more bullish scenarios.. and sometimes might even get attracted to some other "competing" investment, if such a "competing investment" thing actual does exist.

Why switch?

Weren't you a 2x per year kind of a guy?

Yeah, but you have been pretty silent in regards to whether you were able to buy back the BTC that you sold at around sub $20k prices.  How did that work out?

All fine and dandy if you had $100k worth of BTC that you sold at or below $20k, and then you were able to buy $40k back below your sales price and you are scrambling to get back the other 60% at prices that are higher than your sales price.. even though you feel good about it.. you still end up losing and would have had been better off if you had not sold on the way down in the first place.

Another thing that you can proclaim is that your finances "are complicated" because your selling of BTC below $20k allowed you to be able to "invest in mining equipment" that had been way lower prices and opportunities that became available than such mining equipment had been higher prices prior to BTC's price dropping below $20k. .. so perhaps you will have had made up for your sub $20k sales of BTC in the long run so long as your mining ends up sufficiently paying off.. but perhaps, it is too complicated, and in reality, selling BTC below $20k was not such a great idea.. whether you used such proceeds to invest in mining equipment or not.


Nice little "gradual" and ongoing UPpity (maybe our starting base might be in the ballpark of $16,666-ish) since the beginning of the year... that is seemingly "scary" (for some peeps), no?


Exactly!!!!

I don't like that word: "crypto" either.

Tick tock, next block.

Bitcoin gives no shits.

A new block every 10 minutes, give or take 5 minutes.


& GM to uie-pooie too.



Exactamente...   A big nothing burger... those getting worked up about it are attacking bitcoin from my point of view... .. when believing there is some kind of "urgent" need to fix something (or to even think about fixing something) that is not a problem.. not broken.

Honey badger gives no shits if you have to pay 20 sats per vBite versus the 1-2 sats per vBite that you used to get two weeks ago..

hahahahahahaha


Suck it up OroBTC!!!!

With a name like "Oro," you must be richie anyhow, no?   


Are you trolling this here cat?

#asking for a friend