[edited out]
This is a fair explanation of my approach. After posting my last week's Sunday Haikus, I felt the need to clarify things a little bit, because simply saying "5x spot price" seems a bit misleading to someone who doesn't know the details.
Basically, my approach takes the most recent cycle spot peak price, calculates the BTC needed for $2M fuck you status and multiplies that BTC amount by 5. The resulting BTC amount then stays fixed for 4 years, until the next cycle peak. So, for example, the last spot peak price (@ late-2021) was $69k, so my current f.u. status calculation is as follows:
$2M / $69k = 29 BTC
My current f.u. status: 29 x 5 =
145 BTC (since late-2021 and staying fixed until late-2025)
Assuming an upcoming peak of $200k (likely @ late-2025), my new, updated f.u. status would drop to ($2M / $200k) x 5 = 10 BTC x 5 =
50 BTC (will stay fixed until late-2029).
It's like having a f.u. status threshold of $10M and applying it to the cycle spot peak price, forming a staircase with 4-years per step (similar to PlanB's S2F charts).
That's even more looney than my attempt to summarize it, even though it seems to end up with similar results - except the locking in factor seems it even more unrealistic to attempt to apply, even though surely it may well end up working out because if you have reached the 5x entry-level fuck you status for the peak, then that should mean that you should not go below actual fuck you status, unless the BTC price were to dip below 80% from the ATH... It kind of reminds me of nominal inflation versus real inflation, but maybe I am just having troubles getting it to sink in.
If we use our $100k from earlier, your assertion was that many folks would cross over fuck you status at this point... so that still would be implying a need to have 100 BTC, in terms of your formula.. .. so maybe it is even safer and even more conservative than using the 200-WMA..... and people do have a tendency to want to focus on tops rather than bottoms, so it could actually be appealing in that sense... so maybe I can lighten up to it.? Perhaps? perhaps?
OTOH, the current f.u. status based on the 200 WMA (currently @ $31k) would be as follows:
$2M / $31k = 65 BTC
The 200 WMA is undoubtedly a more stable, more "math & science" f.u. status estimation approach, but seems a bit over-optimistic to me. As things currently stand, I don't think 65 BTC is a sufficiently realistic f.u. status amount, as compared to 145 BTC which gives me a nice 2x cushion vs. the 200 WMA approach. By the time spot price reaches $200k, the 200 WMA will likely have reached $50k, so there will be a 50 BTC vs. 40 BTC amount for f.u. status at that time, thus making my approach more conservative overall. I know that this comes from my own conservative nature, and I don't claim that my approach is better. It just suits my own conservative style of doing things.
I guess the net sum of your approach seems like it is more conservative if you just look at the last cycle, but I think that if you look more closely at prior cycles, you will find your approach is likely not as conservative as you are making it out to be, even though there is likely a decent amount of appeal that people have to track the ATH rather than the moving averages.. and probably that's what bothers me about any approach that tries to coordinate strategies with tops rather than with bottoms (or at least the 200-WMA reflects an average over 4 years rather than some potentiality that your system might have in terms of getting caught into the waves of ATHs that might cause your ATH tracer to become too optimistic.
Maybe we can do a quick look at the 2017 ATH.. it was $19,666, so based on that, your 5x ATH would require you to have 515 BTC, although back then maybe we would have used $1 million rather than $2 million as our entry-level fuck you status, so we could cut that in half to be 267.5 BTC.
In regards to the 200-WMA, on December 17, 2017, the 200-WMA was ONLY $1,221 (you can plug in the specific dates
here), so that would mean that for the 200-WMA it would have taken 1,640 BTC for a $2 million entry-level fuck you status and it would have taken 820 BTC for a $1 million entry-level fuck you status.. so there goes your claim to conservativism, because in 2017, the 200-WMA would have had been more than 3x more conservative than your 5x on the spot price theory... and so yeah, the blow off top of 2017 was way the fuck more explosive than the blow off top of 2021, so if we end up getting a blow off top that is more explosive than 2021, then your 5x spot price theory may well end up being less conservative than using the 200-WMA..
And, yeah, maybe we are quibbling over inconsequentialisms and so who is going to know for sure the extent to which the blow of top of this cycle is going to be particularly crazy in order to contribute to your system being less conservative than using the 200-WMA. I am getting more and more tired just thinking about it - because I just have troubles pegging to something like the spot price when the 200-WMA is way more reliable.. and you also have other WMAs that you could do that would bring you closer to spot price but take out some of the extremes.. such as the 100 WMA, the 50-WMA, and the 20-WMA... .. anyhow, I personally find those lower number WMAs to be way more volatile, so that is what makes that 200-WMA to be so dope. and plus if we use the 200-WMA, we are more aligned with our favorite soothsayer wannabe.. namely PlanB.
Also, if you compare the above with
your entry-level fuck you status chart, you will see that our calculations/estimations follow the same trend at the 4-year peak times (145 vs. 112 BTC @ late-2021 and 50 vs. 37 BTC @ late-2025), with my numbers on the more conservative side, and with the major difference that I keep the f.u. status BTC amount fixed between spot peaks, whereas you are reducing it every 6 months. This makes my approach even more conservative as we go deep into each cycle.
Of course in that chart,
in reference to the past, it just shows the facts in terms of the specific dates, and I pick every 6 months randomly, since it very well be that the chart could be updated every day to show the slow changes, but I pick 6 months in order to attempt to be somewhat more granular than annual, but not so granular as to get lost in the details, since the data can be updated on a daily basis since currently the 200-WMA is going up about $33 per day, and in the depths of our dip below the 200-WMA in late 2022, it was only going up around $10 per day... so it could get a bit granular to be adding every day, and surely I could add some more columns, or maybe we can create some extra work for you and you can you should show your columns, since I doubt that your idea (or your columns) is (are) going to play out to be as conservative as you think that it will merely because you seem to be tracking from what the ATH did in 2021 rather than going back to earlier ATHs.
So when it comes to my
attempts to project the future, I updated my chart a couple of times to attempt to make it more conservative, and surely I may well have over done it in terms of my level of conservatism, especially since we know this particular cycle is inline to potentially have much greater price appreciations and we are even on track to have something in the ballpark of 18%-24% for this particular 6 month period rather than 16%, which would be 36% to 48% annualized rather than 32% annualized, but in my last adjustment to the chart, I wanted to error on the conservative side.. but it still ends up being a projection of the future 200-WMAs that are way less than scientific (so you see I am attempting to project the 200-wma and I am in no fucking way trying to project BTC spot prices, even though spot prices higher than the 200-WMA is built into the assumption that 200-WMAs only go up because spot price goes up), and it just seems way the hell easier to attempt to track the variation in the 200-WMA rather than attempting to track the variation in what the BTC spot price might end up doing in terms of the next ATH or any other place that the BTC spot price will be at any given 6 month snapshot.
And even if someone is already measuring his reaching entry-level fuck you status based on the 200-WMA, it seems that once he is into entry-level fuck you status, then he is in, and even though we have no guarantees that the 200-WMA will continue to stay positive, it seems he is not going to be out, once he is in.. since also, so far the lowest annual rate of increase of the 200-WMA was in the period between June 2022 and November 2023, when it achieved ONLY an annualized increase per year of 20%.. .so that is still pretty damned good and still leaves a lot of cushion for anyone who might be making withdrawals of his BTC once he has determined himself to be in fuck you status.. especially if he is sticking with traditional 4% levels of conservativism, even though I am suggesting 6% to 10% to be sustainable withdrawal rates.
In my own system in which I thereafter suggest authorization levels for withdrawal of your BTC, once you have gotten into fuck you status, there is permission to do full withdrawals as long as the BTC price is at least 25% above the 200-WMA, and then there are reductions of the amount that can be withdrawn if the BTC spot price is less than 25% above the 200-WMA.
Maybe we are just quibbling about how secure any guy might feel if he ONLY has the minimum entry-level of fuck you status which is currently 64 BTC, as you mentioned, and from my thinking that seems to be more of a factor of being insecure with $2 million as entry-level fuck you status in terms of if you believe that $6,666 per month is not enough, so if you need $10k per month then so be it, your own personal entry-level fuck you status should be $3 million rather than $2 million... and then if you are questioning whether $3 million is going to keep up with the standard of living, then maybe you are not understanding the charts, if you are withdrawing at 4% per year, but the lowest level of BTC's annualized 200-Week MA has been 20%, and the annualized appreciation is on track to be anywhere between 36% and 44% for this upcoming 6 months, then you seem to be failing and/or refusing to accept and recognize king daddy's actual ongoing power that does not seem to be weakening... there are no real and/or meaningful signs of any such weakening, so you should be able to rely on structuring your own finances around such ongoing averages.
I hope the above text spaghetti makes some sense...
It makes some sense, but it still remains troubling for this here cat.
Poll
