You are not completely wrong in your assertion that the poor are smaller versions of the rich, yet your whole characterization seems to gloss over the fact that the poor still have to clothe, house and feed themselves first, and if there is no money left, then they cannot invest into bitcoin or anything else.  In other words, a certain threshold of income being higher than expenses has to be reached before they are even able to invest.

We can presume that the rich, on the other hand, already have met their basic threshold, so then it is just a question regarding how they choose to spend their discretionary income and if and how they might choose to invest rather than to consume. 

it is true that the rich could end up fucking all of their advantage away by poor money management and inabilities to decipher the difference between consuming and investing or not knowing how to choose good investments.

We might be deviating a bit from the topic of the thread, since earlier I was trying to provide an example to attempt to describe how one person might be willing (and motivated) to diversify into something like MSTR in order to try to build their BTC holdings faster (which may or may not even be prudent anyhow, yet the person is motivated), and another person might consider that he is in a high enough value of a position that he would not feel any necessity to diversify into something like MSTR.

Yet if we think about the matter, the guy who is already established is probably even in a better position to fuck around with something like MSTR as compared with the guy who is still building his investment portfolio, who might need to stay more conservative until he builds his investment portfolio...

AT the same time, nothing is really black and white in terms of how much risk or how much diversification a guy might want to have in his portfolio while he is building it and then once he reaches certain value thresholds there might be a decent amount of utility to balance out his desires for growth into diversification strategies that are meant to preserve rather than grow value.

I have some personal issues with ideas that growth would come from investing into something like MSTR rather than starting with BTC first, especially since the MSTR is already known to be an additional risk on top of bitcoin, and my own ideas have been that any newbie investor should be able to start out by merely investing only in bitcoin, so they would just balance out their investment with bitcoin and cash, and so depending on how aggressive that they might be in their investment, it could take them 10 years to just build up 1 year's investment of their income into their investment portfolio (10% per year adds up to 10 years), and surely some guys are capable of investing more aggressively, so they will be able to progress more rapidly in terms of the size of their investment portfolio.  

I am not really sure if there are any needs to diversify prior to getting your investment portfolio up to some thing close to a year of your income/expenses.  Sure if the investment portfolio is also changing value based on changes in BTC prices, then your calculation could also be influenced by such BTC price appreciation while you are building your BTC stash.

Ultimately there is quite a bit of discretion regarding when and how much to diversify.. and if so? into what?

Back to some overall ideas of your description of your own situation.  I gather that you are suggesting that if the goal were 21 BTC, you are more like the 7 BTC guy rather than the 35 BTC guy... so you are feeling that you are making progress in your BTC accumulation, yet it is taking a while to build your BTC stash, so you are maybe 1/3 of the way towards what you perceive to be your goal... yet at the same time, from your description, you are valuating your BTC based on spot prices rather than the 200-WMA since in your subsequent (below) remark, you said that you might be close to reaching your goal (which you call FIRE (Financially independent, retire early) - and I frequently refer to as fuck you status) if BTC prices were to reach $250k.  Of course, I find that problematic for anyone to be relying on BTC spot prices for valuating their BTC, since from my perspective, it seems to motivate guys to sell large portions (if not all) of their BTC rather than mostly holding onto it and figuring out ways to engage in sustainable withdrawal (whether price based sustainable withdrawal or time based sustainable withdrawal).  

Surely when you are describing your own situation as being 40% in bitcoin, surely, that is not any kind of a whimpy BTC allocation, yet part of the problem is that you may well be allowing BTC's price appreciation affect your assessment, since maybe you had not been allocating into bitcoin at 40%, yet bitcoin's growth has caused your portfolio to be 40% bitcoin, and maybe I am also a bit confused by your other 60%, unless you are saying that your investment portfolio is 40% bitcoin, 40% Brazilian bonds and then 20% some other things.  Doesn't it feel like we are deviating a bit from this topic, unless you are saying that you might be considering the extent to which MSTR might fit in there?    and surely  I would not be totally opposed to such an idea, even though I am maybe a little bothered by some of your assessments that might have been allowing your to be reallocating your BTC or selling your BTC at various points in time prior to reaching overallocation.

As you likely realize that my own position is that no one should be selling any of their BTC until they get to a point of overallocation, and surely even my own position can be quite ambiguous when trying to apply to situations in which guys might be still in fairly early stages of building their overall investment portfolio and trying to figure out their fuck you status.  I would imagine that if you are using something like $250k BTC as allowing your to reach fuck you status, then how do those numbers come out when you consider the 200-WMA and BTC valuations that are based on the 200-WMA that is currently at about $42,133?

You can do whatever you like, yet I personally believe that in order to figure out how many BTC that you need to reach whatever happens to be your FIRE number, you should be valuating how many BTC that you believe that you need based on the 200-WMA rather than based on BTC spot prices, so that you don't get too carried away by BTC spot prices, make sure you keep building your BTC stash and you are not overly selling too many BTC prior to your actually reaching a status of having more than enough.

I don't want to get too much into your own personal circumstances, yet if we continue to use the idea of 7 BTC and then we look at our current spot price, we get a valuation of right around $700k, and if we look at a BTC spot price of $250k for that same 7 BTC, we have $1.75 million... yet if we look at the 200-WMA for the same 7 BTC, we have a valuation of about $300k  I am not sure what those valuations would mean for you, since you would have to figure out your own numbers, and sure within that I have no problem with the idea of diversifying your portfolio including Brazilian bonds, anything else that you have and/or if you might be considering having MSTR in the mix, and surely your goal for BTC might ONLY be one part of your overall investments, and some parts of your investment portfolio would likely be considered as more valuable and other parts less valuable... but hopefully any part of the investment portfolio that you are maintaining has justification in your own ways of thinking for why it is in there and that you are properly assessing its valuation.


It sounds to me that you are planning to overly sell your BTC for less valuable assets, so I am not really sure what to say.  Nothing wrong with having a house, either.

Many times I suggest that guys mostly let the BTC portion of their investment ride, so I don't really agree with ideas of reallocating of BTC, except maybe very little along the way, but surely only having had clearly reached overallocation.. yet I get the sense that you might be continuously reallocating, so taking out of your winners (BTC) and allocating to your various other losers in order to stay balanced.  It is like having a lawn and watering the weeds so that they can keep up with the grass (or whatever your good plants are).

We already know that bitcoin is a killer asset, even though it is quite volatile, yet it is largely volatile to the upside, especially if we are zooming out more than 4 years.  Sure it is not guaranteed to go up on a 4-year timeline, but the investment thesis for bitcoin remains quite strong, including that even though BTC prices seem outrageously high right now, there is no evidence that bitcoin's investment thesis is getting any weaker in recent times, even though rich people, institutions and governments seem to be wanting to crowd out retail with their recent attention to bitcoin, but many of the rich people, institutions and governments remain slow to act, and so in that sense normies like us can continue to front-run them by focusing on stacking sats and don't be fucking around with selling any until you clearly have gotten to a state of overallocation... which you have to figure out how many BTC is your "overallocation" level.  Again, if we are getting a wee bit too off topic, since I am not even sure if you are considering whether to have MSTR in your investment portfolio, then I don't mind taking this to another thread since it truly seem to have a lot of juicy considerations that a lot of guys likely end up having to weigh out in terms of both their bitcoin accumulation journey, yet also how to maintain such BTC allocation in light of some other investments that they have, too.


I think that you are saying the same thing as me, Poker Player (or at least something very similar), but you are saying it differently.

I would say, that you should not be authorizing yourself to be selling any of your bitcoin until you have clearly reached a state of overaccumulation, and since there are so many ways to measure overaccumulation, guys seem like they wrongly assess that they have reached such status of overaccumulation before they have, since they are tied to some of the traditional ideas of reallocating their bitcoin, which seems to be somewhat how bitmover is thinking about his BTC stash.  Sure, in the end, bitmover, and any other forum member can do whatever they like, yet to me it seems quite short sighted to be reallocating out of BTC based on BTC price appreciation rather than ongoingly, persistently and consistently buying BTC until they are really sure that they have more than enough.

So, getting back to the 7 BTC versus 21 BTC versus 35 BTC example, if a guy has concluded that 21 BTC is currently enough or more than enough, then anywhere higher than 21 BTC would allow him to start to shave off some of his BTC from time to time, and if he is really conservative in his shaving off of his BTC then his BTC value is likely to continue to grow in value faster than he is shaving it off, and then perhaps later he might feel like he can shave off more aggressively.

Yet a guy with only 7 BTC has not yet gotten there, but he knows his target, so he knows that he has to keep accumulating, and even in the less preferable  scenarios that he spends several years attempting to accumulate more BTC and he only moves from 7 BTC to 7.25 BTC after another 5 years of accumulating, he likely realizes that another 5-ish or 6-ish years down the road, 7.25 BTC may well be of a similar valuation (including calculating the likely ongoing debasement of the dollar) as the 21 BTC is valued today.. especially if we are using the 200-WMA rather than getting distracted by BTC spot prices.  Yes, it is not guaranteed to increase in value as much as we expect, but still, bitcoin remains amongst the best, if not the best investments currently available, so as you mentioned @Poker Player, it would likely be in our best interests to attempt to remain focused on the accumulation of bitcoin rather than fucking around with other assets, at least until we reach a status of having more than enough bitcoin.  Sure the accumulation of some other assets, may well be fine and dandy just to offset some potential and likely ongoing volatility issues of bitcoin, yet keeping our eye on the prize (which is bitcoin) seems to be central to making sure that we are making progress to our own financial freedom (and having more options) kinds of goals.

Building an investment portfolio takes time, and surely we might need to adapt our goals with changes in various aspects of our circumstances and/or even changes in our target asset versus other possible places that we might choose to put our value.  There is no real right answer, even for any specific person since a guy may even assess his own particular circumstances badly (or wrongly) and need to make adjustments along the way.

With the 7 BTC example verus the 21 BTC goal versus the 35 BTC example, I was not necessarily wanting to comment on whether 7 BTC might already be enough, yet I was trying to frame it with a hypothetical framework in which each person had considered 21 BTC to be enough bitcoin right now (at this time in the market), yet 1 person was still way under that target (only around 33% to the target) and the other person was right around 66% above the target, and to flush out the example even further, I am not even presuming valuations of the BTC holdings based on BTC spot prices, but instead considering the 200WMA as a way to valuate holdings..

Since our 200-WMA is current at right about $42.2k, 7 BTC would reflect about a $300k valuation, 21 BTC would reflect about a $900k valuation and 35 BTC would represent about a $1.5 million valuation.   Yes, I know that spot price is about 142% higher than the 200 WMA, yet any plan that I consider would not be cashing out BTC for cash but instead engaging in some kind of attempt at sustained withdrawal.

In regards to diversification, it may well be questionable the extent to which MSTR represents diversification, since generally the idea of diversification would be outside of the same sector, and surely, I don't have any problem of splitting up some exposure, but the level of diversification would not really be very great between BTC and MSTR... even though MSTR seems to leverage someone what BTC's already existing volatility.

That's the spirit!!! 

"We" are not going to just sit back under complacency regarding 6 digits. 

NOPE.  7 digits are coming. It is just a matter of when, so better to be prepared than not, just in case such 7 digits come faster than expected.

That is be called koreck.

By the way, isn't it a bit funny or ironic that "we" are also experiencing a wee bit of UPpity price moves after business hours?  Some of the M-F operations are going to have to react later.. hahahahaha, to the extent that they are not having to make sure that they defend themselves (and their financial positions) after hours.

What a coincidence.

Are you referring to $crypto$'s post from earlier today?


The chart shows that bitcoin is number seven on the list, and sure probably within this cycle bitcoin will at least get up to number 2, and it may even pass gold this cycle or perhaps in the next cycle?  The path up for bitcoin is not even necessarily directly up, since bitcoin has variance in its valuations.

OG might need to change the topic of the thread to:  "We cannot stop here, this is bat country." 

"We" all need one of those.  With the wooden platform, it looks like it is designed for inside or at least under some kind of cover/elements protection.

 I doubt the that the USA adoption of bitcoin or any other government savings of bitcoin is required for bitcoin to go above $100k and never return to $100k again.  We should not expect that bitcoin needs government in order to save it or to make it more likely to go up without as many or as large of downward corrections.



Hopefully no one is deciding to hold any more than 10% of their value in Gold as compared to what they hold in bitcoin.  Even 10% into the shiny dinosaur rock is likely too much, buy hey guys can do whatever they like.  Even dumb things.

For the time being, we seem to mostly be keeping BTC prices above $100k, yet it remains difficult to rest assured that BTC prices are going to stay above $100k without keeping up with our daily-ish pushups and this thread.

100k,JayJuanGee,313,76265,2024-12-13

Personally I think that the BTC price would have to get supra $250k before we might start to consider that sub $100k might never be touched again.

Sure, I don't really know, so I am speculating too, yet historically we have seen quite a large number of BTC price dips that were 50% or more, and the actual bears have been more than 70%... Accordingly, I have trouble imagining those kinds of 50% + dips completely going away, and 50% of $150k to $180k is $75k-$90k.

Another aspect relates to how far and how fast the BTC price goes up, so generally if the top comes really fast and with a lot of upward movement, then it becomes easier to retrace all of those gains.  Some folks consider it to be better for us to be spending a bit of time around $100k in order to both allow buy support to catch up which may well help to make it more difficult to crash down with so much intensity, if such a future 30% + crash ends up happening in the interim.

Personally, I don't mind either single or double spacing.

Cited to show your doggie image.  For comfort of any potential reader/viewer, I reduced the size a wee bit.


You must have had a bad dream, since this "need" you suggest seems a wee bit out of character for you...

Yes, I know you mentioned 6-digits several times in the past as if it were some kind of a meaningful threshold, but still...   there is not very much difference between $95k and $103k and $110k.  At least there shouldn't be, except in our heads.

In other words, there really seems to be little to no need to become overly emotional or impatient about certain specific price thresholds of dee cornz.

Maybe I am a mal-programmed bot?


Try this mantra...



hhhhhuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



or better yet..





ooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm




I wonder which one you like (if it weren't obvious... hahahahahahaha)

Each investor into bitcoin should adjust his position size according to his perceptions of risk both to the upside and to the downside. 

Yeah.. gold bugs, even though they tend to know about sound money, don't tend to really understand bitcoin... too bad for them.  The gold bugs that figure out bitcoin figure out that gold is fucked.. even though some of them (who learn about bitcoin) still might end up learning about bitcoin and still choosing to hold a certain gold allocation (perhaps more than they should), but little by little they also may well end up figuring out that bitcoin replaces gold as the most superior of monies ever known to man, including that if bitcoin happens to be 1,000x or more better than gold in terms of monetary properties, it still could take a bit of time for that to be reflected in the market, even though the writing is on the wall for anyone who spends some time figuring out the reality of bitcoin's superior value relative to gold that will continue to inspire the gravitation of value into bitcoin and out of gold..

Don't take it wrong, since it is not just good to look at gold, since bitcoin is taking the value from all monetized assets, since bitcoin is superior to all assets that are being used as monetary instruments/vehicles.. houses, equities, collectables and other places that normies tend to hold their value).


More correctly, bitcoin is in early adoption phases, so of course it is going to have a lot of unfair advantages over gold... if we might call it unfair or just call it reality.


Exactly.. .. bit coin might start to settle down a wee bit in the degree of its volatility when it gets more than 10x of gold's market cap.  So sure bitcoin will likely continue to be volatile, but it is likely to be more stable as it is progressing from 10x gold's market cap until it reaches 1,000x or more of gold's market cap.


Probably less than 1% of the world's population has any BTC, so it is very misleading when people try to act like bitcoin is anything even close to approaching a mature asset class.


I doubt it is a good idea to keep any more than 10% of the size of your holdings in gold as compared to what you have in bitcoin and probably even 10% is way too much, even though some people, institutions and governments are going to want to continue to cling onto their shiny metal rock... but it does not matter if they continue to cling onto an inferior  asset that is ongoingly going to get its lunch eaten, just like it has gotten eaten by BTC over the past nearly 13-ish years (I will let them have the first 3 years of bitcoin years as not counting towards price discovery)... we can start from 2012... .to help out gold's comparative numbers a bit.

You seem to under-appreciate the amount of demand that is ongoing with bitcoin.  Sure it is possible to that we get further dips, yet that seems to be a less likely scenario...and even if it drops, that should signify needs to buy. 

Since you have ONLY been registered on the forum for less than 2 years, I would hardly imagine that you have been able to accumulate enough BTC in that time, unless you happen to be able to front load your BTC investment.. .. ..... so in other words, you should be more than happy if the BTC price were to fall so you could get some more at cheaper prices, rather than if it goes up then it will be harder to get more.. .. so I really doubt that there are needs to fear stagnation at or around $100k for newbies to bitcoin...   

A more likely scenario is that BTC prices are going to continue to go up and those folks who failed/refused to stack enough are going to have to pay more for their sats, which I would think that an overwhelming number of folks in bitcoin for less than 4 years would be likely to be in such a place... but hey, maybe you are an exception to that general situation that I think is the case with many regular folks (normie newbies).

On a personal level, I am good enough with just the returns on BTC without the extra complications of third party execution risks, and unknown unknowns that are associated with adding an additional layer of risk - even though surely Saylor seems to have had structured his debt instruments quite ingeniously.

I used some variation of this example earlier.  Let's say that I have 35-ish BTC and you only have 7-ish BTC, and both of us have a target to reach about 21 BTC in order to feel that we are at entry-level fuck you status (based on current market conditions and wherever we might be in our lives), so maybe I am sitting back and I am content because I have about 66% more than what both of us consider to be entry-level fuck you status, and maybe I am already living off my BTC and not necessarily earning income from other places. 

You on the other hand are about ONLY 1/3 towards your goal, even though we know that with the passage of time, maybe even by mid 2029-ish (it may well be the case that 7 BTC will then be worth the equivalent of today's 21 BTC, so less preferred scenario, you consider that you might be wanting to at least get to entry-level fuck you status, and you might even want to get to a similar situation as me, in which you have around 60% or more extra cushion in the size of your stash, so you keep stacking and you are willing to take some chances, since you might not even be urgently wanting to get into fuck you status until you are sure that you have a large enough BTC cushion.. so if 7 BTC is entry-level fuck you status in mid-2029, you would prefer to have double entry level fuck you status, just to feel sufficiently comfortable when you might start to spend from your BTC stash (rather than being in the process of accumulating it).

I am just suggesting that there could be reasons that guys might not want to overly complicate their investment portfolio, even though MSTR does seem like a good place to potentially outperform BTC, perhaps? 

Personally, even though not against any rules, I think that it is a better practice not to include faces of people in your pictures, unless the pictures of people faces might include random unknown people on the street or otherwise found on the internet.


I recall one time in about 2014, I had a small dog (like a 12 lb maltese).

My Maltese looked kind of like this one, but a little bit BIGGER (since the one in the picture looks like 9 lbs).



I would take the dog for a jog a few times a week, and I had gotten to the point that the dog would just follow me without a leash, and I tried to stay in areas where there was not very much traffic. 

For some reason, one day the dog got nervous while we were running over a bridge against traffic and there was a sidewalk going over the bridge and we would run on the sidewalk, and we were on the downside of going down the bridge and on the sidewalk opposite of traffic, and saw a small Toyota pickup coming opposite of us going up the hill on the bridge, and I looked back and my 12 lb Maltese was running in the middle of the road.  The Toyota pickup ran over the top of her, but apparently the wheels did not touch, so the car went right over the top of my dog.

The truck passed by quickly and kept going, and my dog was yelping as if it had been hit, but I inspected the dog and there were no marks anywhere on the dog, even though her eyes looked funny, like they were a bit glazed and glossy... so I figured that maybe her head hit the truck as it was passing over her.   She acted a little bit stupid and out of it for about 24 hours, and then she kind of returned to normal.  I was so relieved because that was such a dangerous situation and the dog even got run over, but we were so lucky that no tires hit any part of the dog's body... but truly the dog was traumatized by the whole situation, and I was traumatized too... since I thought that that the dog was sufficiently trained to stay on the sidewalk and to run behind me... which apparently was not always true, especially she got nervous that particular time... So it can be very scary when the dog's well being is in jeopardy and we likely feel that we have duties to protect the dog from certain kinds of hazards.

I recall another time, maybe a couple months earlier, I had been running that same path with that same dog, and we had a trail around a golf course, and we were running in the evening.. right around sunset, and there was one section that was about about 400 meters long in which I stayed on the service road and the dog ran on the golf course green, and so there was a 8-ish foot high fence between me and her.. and so she was running next to me on my right and she was acting a little weird and she kept looking back and pretty soon I noticed that there was a coyote (maybe about 3x her size.. (maybe about 35 lbs) chasing her and about ready to catch her, so I started to yell and it scared the coyote away, even though there was a fence between me and my 12lb dog, so I sped into a sprint and I said "Run JayJuanGee's Dog, Run" (though I used her real name).. and so when we got to the end, there was a part of the fence that my dog could cross underneath and to be reunited with me. So when my dog crossed under the fence, we could still see the coyote about 50 meters in the distance and just looking at us... and so that was another "close one," and it would have had been quite sad to have had lost the dog to such an incident of getting eaten by a Coyote.


I thought that he was getting a bit too emotional about substantive observations of mine, but hey what do I know? 

It seems that we might be breaking up... so yeah, in the end, you are correct.

I almost never come across plagiarized posts.. but this post from newbie Zozain stood out... since it was the next post on the thread taking from Tungbulu's earlier post.

Plagiarized post:


Original post:

I think that it is a bit less unclear, at least what the lines are meant to signify, and I was just a bit confused by some of it..  Thanks. 

I don't have any problem with the idea that you might be taking from some various sources that you aren't able to disclose, so I would not consider that you would be purposefully attempting to mislead, yet any of us could make mistakes in terms of interpreting data, or how we might put the data together or even drawing wrong conclusions from any data that we might put together. 

I would not presume that you would do any of that on purpose.. except remember the trade that you were considering as a good one?  something like shorting MSTR... and going long on GBTC... sure there might have been some aspects of that that might have had worked out, if I am remembering correctly... .. but yeah, I don't trade  or buy any of these stocks/ETFs anyhow .. even though surely there may be needs to try to keep track of some of these matters since they are popular in the space, and even some normies that I meet in the real world have gotten involved in various bitcoin related stocks and ETFs, and frequently they are just trying to get BTC price exposure, and trying to play various price waves.

A lot of times, I attempt to recommend not to buy secondary products and to buy bitcoin directly, even though surely we know that some folks have some difficulties getting their heads around how to buy bitcoin directly versus some kind of already existing account(s) that they might have that offer such BTC -related product options.