I read it too, not in much detail...there is a lot of info.
@jjg plan is a "mechanical" proposal that works, but i don't think that @philipma1957 (or a theoretical HypoPhil) is following the 1% sale after 10% up.
I think that is part of the reason that I sometimes get frustrated if I am blanketedly compared to Philip, because surely sometimes he is describing a system that is very similar to the one that I have been following since $250, but it seems that so frequently he deviates from the system (in non-systematic ways) that it sometimes appears that he is either just winging it or he is trying to overly-play too much within the system, and to some extent there is nothing wrong with experimenting and even tweaking to something that works for you... while at the same time, there should be a recognition that the overly tweaking of a system, might end up eating away from some of the built in premises.. and so if the overriding premise merely becomes to make sure that you sell higher than you bought, then you are likely getting fiat profits but failing/refusing to get the compounding BTC profits that come from longer term HODLing and/or maybe even sometimes holding (and perhaps even buying more) through dips that might last a couple of years.
Sometimes I kick myself too because i do have more room to sell greater amounts of BTC on the way up, but like I mentioned before if we sell greater amounts, then we end up losing out on the compounding, but sometimes missing out on the compounding is going to be o.k... especially if the value had already compounded several times already. Let's say that the value that we put in several years back had doubled, then doubled again and then doubled again, so then we have gotten to a point that there is a lot of pent up compounding, so in those cases we could still be in a position to sell way more and to go beyond the 1% per 10% because we have already gotten a lot of compounding.
I cannot really say when it might be appropriate to take some extra off the table, because one thing is to do it while the BTC price is rising, so then it seems somewhat safer that greater value had come out of it, and so maybe using how far we are away from the 200-week moving average in one direction or another could be a measure for authorizing oneself to take out extra value.. and again, if the cost per BTC is less than $1k, and you are selling BTC in the $10ks, $20ks or $30ks, there would still be a lot of value (profits) in the sell amounts, but if the costs are somewhere around $10k, they might not even had too many compounding cycles. So BTC HODLers can sometimes rationalize away their costs and accounting in ways that they are able to justify that their costs per BTC are lower in order that they can feel good about selling some of their BTC, even at lower prices, but sometimes there are just fooling themselves with those kinds of calculations that get them to the doubling but they have not really doubled yet when they are more honest with themselves.
Another thing is that if the costs are so low and if you also have a significant amount of a BTC stash, then it may not matter so much when you sell parts of your BTC, but you still may want to temper your BTC sales based on considerations regarding how far the actual spot BTC price is from the 200-week moving average and whether above or below the 200-week moving average.
Another thing is that if you ONLY have 21 BTC since 2015, and even though your cost per BTC may well be around $300 per BTC ($6.3k total invested), but your stash of might not give you as much freedom to do what you like as someone who might have bought 21 BTC in 2015 for around $300, but then also spent the next more than
8 years buying BTC at $100 per week and investing an additional $42k and accumulating an additional 16.5 BTC..
So the second person had $48.3k invested but he also has 37.5 BTC (average cost of $1,288 per BTC), which gives the second person a lot more cushion to be shaving off BTC even though the first person's compounding number is much greater (around 4x greater) than the second person.
He might be selling either more or less and mostly looks at it to fund his lifestyle, which is totally fine.
Yes of course, you get ongoing profits, but it is way more difficult to end up getting the compoundig that comes with trying to stay holding for longer periods of times and maybe covering a couple of cycles.. or maybe at minimum a cycle and a half.. but surely some people will get lucky in one cycle too... such as the late 2015 to late 2017 move from $250 to $19,666, it is difficult to hate on guys who were selling large amounts of their BTC in that period, even if they might have sold a lot below $10k.. and surely there were a lot who sold (perhaps too much of their BTC) around $5k on the way up to $19,666 the first time around in 2017.
The initial proposal by Rpitiela had 10% sell after 100% rise, which is quite different than 1% after 10%.
My feeling is that 1% sell after 10% rise is too "granular".
Of course you are referring to Rpietila's discussion in the below cited thread, and in some ways you are correct that the granularity does end up causing differences, because it does not allow for as much compounding, so it undermines the 10% per 100% rise, but at the same time, even Rpietila was not so strict in terms of his proclamations of tailoring the amounts to your own situation including figuring out when the first rake of profits might come and then the thereafter increments of the rakes.
I also have various buy back formulas contained within my own calculations that I purposefully chose to leave out of my presentation of HypoPhil because I was concerned about overly complicating matters.. which surely Rppietila's ideas were about selling and never looking back.. and even Rpietila had some regrets about some relatively large amounts of BTC that he sold around $600 in the second leg of the BTC price going up from $100 to $1,163 in late 2013. He regretted that he sold too much too soon... but then the BTC price did end up correcting back down to below $200 for short periods of time and then getting stuck mostly in the mid $200s for most of 2015... so he would have had opportunities to buy back, except by then he seemed to be scamming in connection with Monero and some gaming platforms (his own shitcoin variants).
Today's WSJ article actually opines that with the taming of Binance (and assuming ETF comes relatively soon), bitcoin and the rest would swiftly come into the government control, in the author's words:
Binance’s acquiescence to Uncle Sam is indeed a watershed moment for crypto. The company had little choice and would likely have suffered a far worse fate if it had not passed under the yoke. But the remaining true believers have a point too. What does crypto [his term, sorry] have to offer—beyond clunky, wasteful and overly complicated technical systems—if it abandons its aspirations to operate independent of government oversight? The probable answer is: not much.
https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/the-end-of-cryptos-dream-to-escape-from-government-110aeca9WSJ is probably mostly wrong, but not entirely, I feel.
Hopefully, you do not turn back into the whimpy Biodom of yester-years by giving too much credit to these supposed and likely exaggerated abilities to "tame" bitcoin.
I have ongoingly believed that we always need to keep some or these negative scenarios in mind, which is part of the reason that we likely need to attempt to dance in both worlds, and so it is never really easy to figure out where to draw the line in regards to how aggressive that we might want to be with our bitcoin holdings.
Some "soul searching" among participants would be in play in the next 12-18 mo.
With most mining being controlled by larger corporations/entities and bitcoin flows largely controlled by the upcoming ETF(s), who will be in control of btc? Investors in ETF/mining companies?
With that, I still hope that the essence of bitcoin would endure all of this.
Good thing that bitcoin is not proof of stake, as seems to be part of the assumption underlying your framing of the matter. I will agree with you that there is a bit of a danger in terms of quite a few normies not seeming to recognize and/or appreciate the values of self-custody in spite of many of the 2022 blow-ups that seemed to have related to custodying coins with other services (or believing that you were buying bitcoin when you were not.., you were buying claims to bitcoin, which can really cause you to get fucked over in a variety of circumstances including but not limited to rug pulls and bankrupcies.).
Poll
