[edited out].
As for the rest of your post, I guess it all came about because you treat stablecoins differently than the US dollar.
I am starting to question whether we might not be talking past each other..
yes.. my posts stands for itself and yes stable coins are different from the dollar, even if they might be pegged to the dollar.. and you were the one to bring up stable coins in the first place and start to proclaim that they were better than the dollar blah blah blah.
I understand they are completely different, but they are currently valued the same, where one is "as good as cash" but has it's own issues, and the other, I simply use because it's easier to send back and forth to other exchanges that also accept that stablecoin, as you have experienced with Binance / Binance US.
Yes, it is also your own little exploration topic, too.. which might be part or the explanation for some of the frustration coming out of yours truly.
Based on what I can understand from you, other than your dislike or hatred for stablecoins and shitcoins, if you consider the USD as cash, and I'm treating stablecoins as cash, we're simply talking about the same thing with different properties or risks associated with them.
Have you noticed the part that I repeated several times that the subject matter is off topic, and I did not even say that I hated them, necessarily.. even though I have stated that if they are brought up in this thread they should not be brought up in any kind of positive way.. because otherwise that would be off topic and/or a slippery slope to further nonsense talk in that direction.. which some peeps seem really inclined to engage in such nonsense talk whenever such a thing might be possible.. go figure.
I'm not talking about the underlying platform, or yield, or borrowing from BlockFi / Celsius / Nexio / what-ever other lending or borrowing platform.
Yes... I agree... I thought that we had already established those points, anyhow..
I think I may have just misunderstood you and apologies for using the term stablecoins when I meant USD; I just happen to be able to use the stablecoin as a proxy for the fiat dollar for general usage purposes. Or rather, I did mean stablecoins and not USD but for almost all practical intents and purposes I see them as similar if not the same.
But they are not the same.. and hopefully we already established that this thread is about the USD/BTC pair and not about stable coins and also not about assuming that USD and stable coins are the same, even if they may well share some features.
There's more than one to choose, and if using an exchange like Gemini or Circle, they support the more notable ones that aren't in as much danger as say, tether.
Even though this is off-topic, Danger is a matter of perspective, and surely there are plenty of folks who would place more confidence in USDT rather than stable coins that have been created under more regulatory accepted circumstances... but anyhow off topic, even though your statement is far from a given.
As for FU status, your view is a lot more conservative using the 208 WMA, I was just trying to think in terms of the sat stacker who can't get up to 100 BTC starting today and may want to experience "retirement" earlier than attempting to stack 143 or 200 BTC, or even have 30 BTC. These guys want to get as close to, and maybe exceed a little, but not have "too much". It's good, but there are some trains of thought that you don't need beyond a certain amount, so waiting too long might be "wasting" time you can enjoy now doing other things than working for income.
Ultimately, both of us have been using a variety of scenarios for the purpose of making differing points, including what might be considered entry level fuck you status and/or some various ways that someone might consider spending his/her coins (or putting his/her coins to work) after having had reached fuck you status, and sure for the sake of simplicity, maybe we are categorizing value in terms of dollars and BTC, but there may well be some other cashflow management assets being bounced around within the discretion of the FU status BTC HODLer, too.
If someone already has other sources of income other than employment, such as other traditional investments, or running a successful business (pretty hard to do during the pandemic), then they may not actually be into retiring from work, or may not see their work as something to quit from anyway.
Well sure. A matter of have to or want to, and sometimes those motives might not even be clear but could vary if someone currently has 100 BTC, and does not really consider himself/herself in FU status, but if the BTC spot price doubles to $100k (and even the 208-week moving average doubles from $15k to $30k), that same person might start to think differently about whether s/he believes his/her time is being used effectively in such previously considered "successful business," and if another doubling of spot price to $200k takes place and the 208-week moving average does another doubling, too from $30k to $60k, again there could well be quite a bit further motivation (to have gone from less than fuck you status to 3x and then to 6x FU status based on such conservative measures as the 208-week moving average) to enter into actual fuck you status rather than maintaining such previously considered "successful business."
Don't get me wrong, I am not really highly confident that the 208-week moving average will double again during this cycle or to double twice in this cycle, even though surely it has tripled already from $5k to $15k in about 18 months from March 2020 to present. Those kinds of actual measurements can bring a lot of confidence to folks who currentlymight be considering themselves on the cusp of FU status to actually move into a more unambiguous FU status using whatever might happen to be their own criterion.. and surely I have been suggesting that there are a lot of advantages in choosing conservative criterion in order to considerably decrease the odds of actually prematurely entering into FU status.
Some people like what they are doing, get paid for doing it, and don't even get into thinking of retiring in the traditional sense. They can live off their earnings and stack more sats. I believe most current multi-millionaires and billionaires are in this category.
Who cares? You do you. If others want to keep working, then that is their choice.
If they have other ambitions besides getting to fuck you status that is their choice as well.. seems to be getting way the fuck beyond topics discussed here in order to get into details about the so many other vague as fuck aspirations that a lot of people might have and supposedly (according to you Dabs) a majority of multi-millionaires and billionaires live such lives. Good.. great. Good/great for them...
They don't need to do anything, but they still do whatever it is they are doing, and can obviously afford to say FU to anyone (not that they do it.)
Again.. so what?
It's a fine line between achieving FU status and actually living off it.
What is so fine about it? If you are clearly in FU status, then you can live off of it. You just have to have your budget. If you happen to want to live off more than $6,666 per month and you only have $2million in principle, then yeah, you may well have to continue to work to actually reach fuck you status because you were lying to yourself when you said you needed $6,666 and you actually need more..
In any event, a lot of this does not matter because you can put your FU status line whereever you want, and if you don't feel comfortable when you reach your line, you can tweak it up if you need to before you actually pull such lever.. if that was what you had been planning on doing.
No good playing with the hypothetical.. because if you are talking about someone who has an entry level fuck you status of $10 million rather than $2 million, then sure let him/her reach that status instead because anything less than $10 million is not going to be enough.. so sure, maybe the conceptualization of entry-level FU status started as $2 million but when s/he reached such status, s/he realized that s/he would prefer $10 million rather than $2 million, then ok. whatever, do what you are going to do.
You don't want to get there when you are 80 years old when you could have done it earlier because you insist on being too conservative. (and then dying a year later because you hit average life expectancy age.)
That's ridiculous. You are fucking around with the hypothetical. You go one way and then you go the other way, and now you want to bring up new scenarios of supposedly not being able to make it.
I'd be scared to "retire" even at 65 if I only had $2m USD, but it's one of those things where you just have to take that risk. Or keep working.
Just last year, entry-level fuck you status used to be $1 million. Just in the past year, it seemed to have become more realistic to move such entry level fuck you status up to $2 million, so of course, no one is suggesting that you have to fit within such hypothetical. You might have a higher number. I really do not see any reason to change the number again.. Currently, $2 million seems to be like a very good working number for entry-level fuck you status.. even though of course, some people need more and some people can get by with quite a bit less.. but they still can establish their own number.. and there are some people who have said that $500k is enough, which would presumptively allow for a passive cashflow of $1,666 per month.... so yeah.. some people know that they can get by on less, and other people believe that they need more. You do you, even though I believe that $2 million continues to be a pretty damned decent entry-level working number.. that will apply for a lot of people to provide a kind of realistic and practical guidance.
As for someone with 30 BTC to spend out of 200, I'd think other than continuing to work because he likes to, he can retire now.
I doubt that I need to repeat the idea again, but it was used as an idea of a guy who got way the fuck past his target fuck you status which was 143 BTC, but he has 230 BTC, and he decides to give his lil selfie a 4-year budget of 30 BTC or $100k per year, and if he happens to be scared of BTC volatility, he could cash out 7.62BTC right now at today's prices and have his $400k in the bank and have 22.38BTC that he could roll back into his overall budget.. or he could play a bit more loosey goosey with his 30 BTC, but his budget is still $100k per year in this particular hypothetical that I had provided....so it seem quite likely no matter what he does and no matter what BTC prices do, he is going to end up with some value at the end of the 4 years.. that is why he has a whole hell of a lot of flexibility to do whatever the fuck he wants and he already created his parameters.. and of course, he could change those too, but based on what is going on today.. . he already established his tentative plan.
Perhaps the discussion now should be between using 208 WMA * 25 instead of spot price * 30 ? or something in between.
You are the one that wants to talk about the 25 years and the 30 years.. the same principles can apply, and I already gave the example.
Looks like the 208-week moving average is up to $15k, now, so if a guy reaches 133.33 BTC he has $2 million dollars ($2million/$15k=133.33). with $2 million dollars he can spend $6,667 per month, which is $80k per year perpetually.. 25 years. 30 years 50 years.. whatever. You want to frame the limitations that he might have in another way and consider that he might run out, then go ahead. that's on you. i don't think that he is running out if he stays within those parameters and monitors the 208-week moving average from time to time to make sure that it is moving up more than 4% per year.. which it likely will be.. but if it is not, he can adjust accordingly.. his withdrawal rate or whatever.
I mean, I like looking at 208 WMA, but I think it's too conservative. Some people don't have much time to live, so I guess it also depends on your age now.
I already mentioned the possibility of using the 156 WMA (which would be 3 years rather than 4 years).. but the 208-week moving average seems better (because it accounts for the most bear of markets.. but the 156-week moving average might work, too (it is currently almost $17,400).. but the BTC price is way more likely to go below it more frequently.. but sure you can still use it.. it is not overly sloppy).
You do what you like, and even if you believe that you might not be able to make fuck you status,.. your timeline should not cause you to get sloppy and into pulling the fuck you lever too early.. but whatever, I am just suggesting guidelines for considering these matters, including a goal of attempting to account for extreme BTC volatility, and extreme BTC bottoms... which the 208-week moving average does seem to do better than the 156-week moving average or whatever else you are proposing to be using... but sure, the 156-week moving average of $17,400 is currently giving you about $2,400 higher extreme bottom BTC price than the current 208-week moving average of $15k.
Poll
