[...]
It makes some sense, but it still remains troubling for this here cat.
Thanks for your comments (edited out for brevity, post header links above for details). I know that my approach is "non-standard" and I can assure you that I'm not blindly applying it without looking into the context of the current Bitcoin moves and developments. This is just a fun experiment for me, to see how things play out, based on different metrics that we devise and compare with. As I've stated numerous times, the 200 WMA is my favorite indicator as far as the overall trend is concerned, and will likely continue to be, unless some extreme event happens, which completely invalidates the status quo (a.k.a. Bitcoin cycle periodicity and the happenings within each period). The new ETF players, increased adoption and regulation, as well as the reduced production or new coins due to the halvings, could affect said periodicity and what it entails, in semi-unforeseeable ways.
IOW, there's no such thing as a Crystal Ball
TM, but there
is math & science (hence the "semi-" above).
Re. the 2017 cycle peak, my f.u. status requirement was
509 BTC vs.
1658 BTC (using 200 WMA), which does break my conservative claim, and this can also be deduced by considering the difference between spot peak and 200 WMA, which was around 16x at that time (compare this with my approach's fixed 5x cushion). The main difference is that my 5x cushion stays fixed, whereas the difference between spot peak and 200 WMA tends to get reduced after each cycle, thus reducing the cushion and making my approach more conservative as we go into the future.
As for f.u. status, many of us have achieved it, or not, depending on the chosen metric, as well as country of residence, desired standard of living, LHB wants/needs, etc. The more conservative the metric (even if it is non-standard, inaccurate, or even looney, as you put it), the more secure one's f.u. status becomes. I wouldn't want to have my standard of living (assuming it is, or will soon be, mostly Bitcoin-dependent) be based on some borderline f.u. status predictor, which could fail whenever Warren Buffett decides to say something wise of whenever some curly-haired, crazy CEO decides to go Bernie Madoff on his customers. Not saying the 200 WMA is a borderline f.u. status predictor, just talking generally here.
In some sense, all our efforts to predict Bitcoin's value and future status could be moot, when we consider the possibility of Bitcoin eventually dominating the entire world monetary system, thus confirming the "0.21 BTC is enough" YouTube video recommendations, which used to be "2.1 BTC is enough", or "21 BTC is enough", a.k.a. One in a Million, if you go way back. Notice how the "sufficient" BTC amount is divided by 10 (an order of magnitude) as we move into the future.
As many WOers would say: 1
BTC = 1
BTC. Just make sure you own some.
Poll
