[edited out]
I doubt if in 1000 years to come there will be any coin that will be close to Bitcoin dominance. Bitcoin is the ultimate here and no shitcoins can go close to the uniqueness of Bitcoin.
Why do we need to go 1,000 years into the future? How might that either be relevant or how could we have any idea of how that far into the future might play out except potentially hypothesizing in a directional way.
Isn't more relevant to think about 4-10 years in a more concrete way, and yeah maybe 30-50 years could have some level of relevance, yet the further we go out, we have to be careful in regards to figuring out how those further out times might affect our actions in current times.
I did a quickie search for Stake in the signature campaign thread, but I could not see what they pay, but if they were to pay something like $100 per week in USDC, then surely every week that could be converted into bitcoin, or otherwise, maybe a portion of it, such as $80 converted into bitcoin and then the other $20 per week allocated towaards buying on dips or some other method that would not necessarily involve buying right away.
From you explanation, that means if a Stake participant is able to be buying Bitcoin with part of the signature campaign payment on a weekly basis, he would end up accumulating a lot of Bitcoin if it's done for 52 weeks a year consecutively for 4 to 6 years. This would be a breakthrough from mosh holders to earn more money when the value of Bitcoin keeps increasing.
Imagine converting payment in USDC to Bitcoin a week basis.
Let's assume a Stake participants frequently convert 100 USDC to Bitcoin every week for 4 years to 6 years intervals.
100 USDC × 52 weeks a year = 5200 USDC worth in BTC
5200 USDC × 4 years = 20,800 USDC in BTC
If a participant is able to buy Bitcoin every single week worth of 100 USDC for 4 consecutive years. This would worth a lot of money more than 20,800 USDC worth in Bitcoin because the price of Bitcoin is not stable like the stablecoins i.e price is fixed!
If we assume that a Stake particular has been has been holding Bitcoin since August 2021 no matter the value, by now the worth would have exceed 5X if I am not mistaken. Buying and accumulating Bitcoin every week is what will make value to exceed 5X to a greater worth than holding in shitty centralized stablecoin like USDC that is almost controlled by the government influence.
Your math comes off as mostly correct, yet we still might presume even a person who invested $100 per week into bitcoin for 10 years, then he would have had invested into bitcoin around $5,200 per year and
$104k $52k over 10 years, so it is unlikely that he would have accumulated even half of a bitcoin. Perhaps after 10 years, he might have had accumulated in the ballpark of less than 0.25 BTC, yet of course, each of us can ONLY do what we can do, and if we have money from a signature campaign, we also might have money from other sources. We cannot necessarily count on the pay rate of the signature campaign continuing at a similar rate, even if we might ongoingly try to make sure that we are participating in the higher paying of the signature campaigns.
Another thing, you cannot just say proclaim that since the bitcoin price went up 5x in the past 3 years that the person's bitcoin holdings would have had gone up by 5x unless they were able to invest all of their money at a lump sum at a low price and then the bitcoin price goes up 5x after they had already established their stake in bitcoin. You can look at the kinds of numbers you get on a DCA calculator.
So even a guy who had invested
$100 per week over the past two cycles (let's say from April 11, 2017 until April 11, 2025) , he would have had invested right around $42k and he would have accumulated right around 4 BTC. Surely not a bad place to be, but he would not have had been even close to the guy who already had $42k and who had invested $42k at the beginning of the period, in April 2017. The guy who lump summed into the investment would have been able to accumulate 34 bitcoin from the same $42k invested.
Each of us can ONLY do what we can, and frequently DCA is the best option that we have available to ourselves both financially and psychologically.. yet at the same time, there are some guys who can scrape together some extra money to both lump sum and to front load their investment earlier in the timeline.. yet if you frontload invest earlier in the timeline and the BTC price ends up going down, you may well regret that you did not hold some of that lump sum back and to perhaps invest with DCA and/or with buying on dips with part of the lump sum amount that you had available at the time that you got started investing into bitcoin.
Part of the real world dilemma is that guys don't tend to have $42k just sitting around that they are able to invest, and their best ability to build their investment is just to invest whatever they are able to invest as they money is coming in..which will tend to be some variation of DCA and maybe every once is a while they will have extra money coming to them that they might divide up into DCA, lump sum and/or buying on dips..
Coinbase increased the trading fees to up to 1.2% for the 'taker" fee for the first 10K in a 30 days period.
What gall! Fleecing the smaller holders.
Of course, with this volatility, it doesn't matter, but still...
I did a quickie look at Coinbase fees and it appears to be 0.6% on each side... so if you have one trade that involves both selling and buying back (or buying and then selling) it would add up to 1.2% for both ends of the trade.. which is not outrageous since there are two trades involved.
https://help.coinbase.com/en/exchange/trading-and-funding/exchange-feesI am not against the idea of dying with zero, even though I think that it is better to set up systems of sustainable withdrawal.. so those are philosopical differences, since I would not necessarily agree with the idea of depleting one's principle until perhaps later in life.. which surely could end up in a lot of cases of not dying with zero.
Dying with zero is pretty pathetic and greedy.
Perhaps you should think about others who could use your excess wealth.
I can accept the fact that leaving it to immature young family members could be a waste but maybe you can think of more responsible recipients who could put it to good use.
Enjoy the benefits of your success while you're alive but don't assume you'll be able to time your lifespan to use up your wealth. You might live longer than you think. Keeping enough for a good future is essential. That means leaving some behind.
Think about what you want to happen to what's left behind.
You have described part of my problem with the idea of of dying on zero and the way that bitmover seems to be outlining it, and also previous discussions that I have had with him on the matter (through public posts).
Of course, I don't want to pick on anyone in particular, and I am largely bothered with the idea of both being unable to time your death as you suggested, yet it seems to be used as a way to end up cashing out way too much too soon and not getting the actual benefits of the little more effort that comes from creating a sustainable withdrawal system, and bitcoin seems to have had made sustainable withdrawal so easy since we likely need way less wealth than we would in traditional investment systems that really ONLY allow 4% annual withdrawal, yet if we valuate our bitcoin holdings based on the 200-WMA (bottom prices) then we likely can create and maintain sustainable withdrawal systems without overly depleting our principle.
Of course, no investment is completely guaranteed, so we can potentially make adjustments to our bitcoin investment as we are withdrawing from it in the event that either we believe that we are withdrawing too much too soon or on the other hand if we purposefully decide to live it up in the event that we might have some end date in mind.. which even people who know about their health condition, they could still end up outliving expectations, which would be sad to outlive our money, which I think easily ends up happening to folks who get overly excited to be spending too much too soon rather than attempting to employ some kind of a sustainable withdrawal.
Poll
