[edited out]
JayJuanGee, I understand your point as well as your explanation here. After all I don't want to suggest someone diversify into altcoins if they basically have better options than that. Gold, property and a few other options are investment assets that allow them to earn returns,
It seems that the strength of my response had to do with how your post was ambiguous regarding what you had meant about diversification, and why anyone would be choosing to do it or should be choosing to do it.
You can choose to diversify into anything you want, and at any point in your investment journey, and part of my point also had to do with the lack of value that comes from any kind of belief that you need to diversify for the mere sake of it, and most likely the value of diversification comes as your investment portfolio grows - but still there can be inclinations to diversify for the mere sake of it and under the mere belief that value comes from that, which seems to have had been how you were framing the diversification idea. In that regard, my previous points seem to already speak for themselves.
but I wouldn't be able to fully blame it if someone among us also secretly invested in altcoins as an effort to diversify its assets.
There is no reason to be secret about it, even though the discussion of it here is deviating from the topic of this thread....
And, you also still don't seem to be getting the point that buying shitcoins is likely NOT diversifying in any kind of correct definition of what you may well be wanting to achieve from diversification, which is non-correlation.. which I have also sufficiently touched upon that, too.
We are in the same space where the investments we make are recognized as risky actions. The goal of diversification is to gain and minimize the risk of loss and maximizing returns, but of course one can make mistakes that increase the risk of loss. I also don't want to talk too much about altcoins though I may not be the only person thinking about diversification.
To me, even from that comment, it still sounds like you don't really have a good grasp on when to diversify or even how to diversify, so there is nothing wrong with thinking about whether you should do it or how you should do it, and you likely can do that without pumping the idea that it is good to diversify for the mere sake of it blah blah blah.. which hardly makes any sense on its own.
I am not purposefully trying to give you a hard time, but maybe if you give some kind of an example that would go into some description of how many kinds of investments that the person has, and try to stay focused on bitcoin, so if you might say that a person has an annual income of $24k, and over the past 9 years (if we use your forum registration date late 2014), he has been building his investment portfolio, but surely he made some mistakes along the way - yet at this time he has about $100k, invested
.** , and maybe we can say that the various expenses, allow for around $400 per month to be invested in
to bitcoin or anything else. The example that I am currently describing may well be worthy of concerns of diversification, because the size of the investment portfolio is already reaching more than 4x of the size of the annual income, but if someone is less than the size of 1 year's annual income, there may well be less importance in diversifying (for the mere sake of it).
**Note that I am partially using the DCA chart that shows if someone has been into BTC for 9 years, and merely invested $10 per week, he would have invested $4,700 into BTC and right now he would have had about 4 BTC .. but if our hypothetical person screwed up a lot including getting caught up into shitcoins and/or failing/refusing to stack sats and/or failing/refusing to mostly HODL rather than fucking around with trading, then sure, maybe this person will not even have had been able to keep up with even a very small regular investment into bitcoin.So you might well be able to describe what the current allocations are since we would have most of the other relevant details in regards to how much is the income. Maybe the main categories in terms of relevance to this thread would be bitcoin, cash, other assets, and shitcoins. What would be the percentages of each of those, and why diversify? You mentioned property and gold, but there is also equities, other commodities and perhaps some business investments. Some kinds of investments are more liquid than others, so there are questions regarding how to value these assets in terms of your quasi-liquid investment portfolio assets and/or questions regarding whether to just mostly let them ride if they already exist as investments (or to move them around in a reallocation way) or to mostly just increase allocations (or add new assets) by using new income as it comes in.. and of course, these practices don't necessarily need to be all or nothing, even though it would be helpful .
So maybe the punchline ends up being that hypothetical person already has fucked up allocations that might have to do with the way that he had been historically treating his bitcoin, or if there are concerns that the bitcoin allocation is way too much value as compared to the other allocations, then surely I can understand that the remaining allocations might need to be able to stand on their own, because it is good to be as aggressive as you can in regards to bitcoin without necessarily ONLY having your eggs in one basket such as bitcoin, and sure maybe you want to go beyond bitcoin, cash and shitcoins, too...
but I still think that bitcoin is a way better investment than property in the coming 10 years..
I completely agree with you that Bitcoin is better and more profitable. Bitcoin have been around for less than two decades and have experienced astronomical growth in value. With the events lined up for Bitcoin and
the popularity it is enjoying, we will see huge and rapid growth in Bitcoin in the new future.
Well, you say popularity, but I am not even sure if it would be very accurate to describe bitcoin as popular, even if it might be "popular" within some segments of society, and even if it seems to get quite a bit of press in recent times in light of it still being a baby in terms of the level of adoption.
Sure, we have some BIG players who hold a lot of bitcoin, but still overall, I doubt that there is any convincing evidence that bitcoin is experiencing overall adoption levels of greater than 1% of the world's population having exposure to it.. and at the same time, if we consider companies, there are some BIG players talking BIGGEDly about bitcoin, but their ongoing "BiG" talk on the topic does not really seem to reflect in bitcoin's numbers - including but not limited to price... so it seems very questionable in regards to how much actual bitcoin that some of the BIG talkers have.. whether Blackrock and various persons and institutions associated with that and maybe some of the other BIG players who likely do not even have very much exposure to directly owning bitcoin, otherwise it seems that the BTC prices should be reflecting those kinds of acquisition dynamics... so anyhow, my point is to question the use of the term to describe bitcoin as "popular."
I don't know about your end but from my end, Bitcoin is enjoying the greatest popularity ever...
I already addressed this.
it is talk about in schools, markets, and different gatherings within my neighborhood.
It's talked about? So fucking what.
Are they buying? Sure, I can concede that if bitcoin is being talked about then it makes it easier to buy, but I still would not use the term "popular" for the reasons that I already went into, which largely relate to buying.
In part, we might be arguing over semantics.
Social media platforms is no exception to this because Bitcoin have remained consistent as a trending topic in my Twitter day in day out especially as we entered the second half of the year. I can assure you that Bitcoin awareness have gone deeper than you can imagine even among the unbanked population.
Don't be trying to suggest that I cannot see the "trending" matters, yet where is the buying? do you have the metrics to show the buying or increased ownership that is actually based on facts rather than "a lot of people talking about it" but not doing shit. hahahaha
Where's the beef?
Lest I forget, Bitcoin dominated the discussion of a Human Resources Manager Town Hall Meeting of the company where I work; they were deliberating on alternative source of income for the staff to augment the salary that they refused to increased amidst daunting economic challenges.
In the end, did anyone buy any BTC? Yeah, sure it is difficult to measure, but if people were actually buying, it would show in the price.
And, by the way, I consider that a lot of the hype and discussion about BTC is likely going to contribute towards upwards BTC price movements in the next couple of years, but I doubt that many of these folks are buying right now.. even if they are talking a big game and there is a lot of bitcoin buzz out there.. as you seem to be appreciating (noticing/wanting to see).
I intend to make a thread for this to seek the inputs from other members of the forum as I was given a role to play in this regard.
That would be great. I look forward to your thread, and I would like to see an invite, if I don't end up coming across it on my own... or a link here or wherever you believe it would be good to drop such link, once you make the thread or maybe after it has been live for a while.
So, even though it is looking like Bitcoin is popular among the believers, it has made its way into the hearts of many and with time, a lot of people will adopt Bitcoin given the beauty and promises it holds.
Sure. No problem with the conclusion that increased sentiment is likely going to result in increases in buying actions and upwards BTC price pressures, even if we might not see it so much in BTC's price performance data at this particular time.
Maybe you want to suggest that people are buying but, their buying is just not showing in BTC's price data, but the fact that they are buying brought us up from $15,479 in November to our current $29k-ish prices.. perhaps? perhaps? but it is not easy to make a lot of those kinds of claims, and surely if we end up getting price pumps that largely have been falling in 4-year cycles and are likely to continue in 4-year cycles, then it is like that there are more buyers than sellers during the period that the BTC prices are going up...
Trying to narrow down why the BTC price is doing what it is doing, where it has been and what it is going to do are not easy kinds of claims, but surely beyond just having the 4-year cycle ideas that also relates to stock to flow, we also have a kind of dynamics that relates to a confluence of adoption/network effects factors that can be labelled as s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles... and when I am referring to network effects, I am thinking in terms of
seven outlined by Trace Mayer in 2014/2015 or so.
Directionally, I am not disagreeing with you, even though I stick by my earlier assertions about what I believe to be a poor and likely misfitting use of the assertion that "bitcoin is becoming more and more popular" blah blah blah... which is maybe asserting the obvious without saying anything, but the crux of my push back on the matter likely has to do with it as being a vague (and perhaps shitty measurement) even though sure, no problem you can talk about it all that you like and try to show that you have measures of it, but when push comes to shove, we likely need harder data than the mere fact that "a lot of people are talking about it." Who cares? let them talk, but are they actually doing the more concrete things of taking some kind of an allocation into bitcoin? and what are their other actions in that direction, setting up accounts, wallets, running a node, sending and receiving transactions, if they are buying into third-party accounts (to get BTC exposure) in which they don't own the keys then can we see that data "on chain" or are there a lot of third-party custodied accounts that are going to end up either rug pulling again, not having the BTC that they claim or other kinds of shenanigans?
Sure, bitcoin might never reach all time highs again, yet we have already seen historically that a lot of folks sell way too many of their BTC too soon, merely because they fail/refuse to recognize/appreciate both the value and the upwards price potentials of the asset that they hold (namely BTC).
It's all about the taste at the beginning, keep trying, then we will be sure that this is true, and it is very relevant to the current situation, many are still waiting and seeing and even selling it. even though his little heart says hold on and inversely so that we have not been able to take advantage of this change, not only survive through this big and historic moment.
Yes. The price of Bitcoin decreased in mid-June 2023 and history has become authentic proof and for me BTC is a good investment.
Overall, it tends to be very difficult for normies to take action that results in a kind of incrementalist and ongoing investment into something like BTC, so if they invest into it, then they are expecting results in a relatively short-period of time so that they can feel material benefits from their investment action - which largely likely means that they end up buying too much right at the beginning.. and then failing to consistently keep buying, and sure if they end up getting lucky in regards to the BTC price moving up, then they may well end up selling too much too soon or just failing/refusing to stay convicted into their maintaining their position and perhaps even building on their position - which also might require them to spend some time learning about what they invested in, whether through a forum like this or some other various sources that might have decently good (rather than misleading) information.. and sometimes if they are not really informed about what they bought and they do not engage in critical thinking to be able to sort the good and bad information, then it also might be more difficult for them to both consider bitcoin as a longer term investment of 4-10 years or more and to act upon such longer term conviction.
~snip~
Investing in two closely related assets is actually not "diversification".
Do you mean bitcoin and real estate are closely related? I don't think so and can you point out their relevance? As I said in my previous comment, once we have invested in bitcoin and want to diversify, we should choose assets unrelated to bitcoin and crypto, such as real estate, stock, etc. Honestly, I don't see any connection between them. The only connection I see is that they are all part of the world economy, other than that, there is no close relationship between them like bitcoin and altcoins.
It seems to me that Wind_FURY's comment had to do with the close relationship between bitcoin and shitcoins, and not bitcoin and real estate.. even though he put that comment right in the context of your talking about real estate as possible way of diversifying or lessening bitcoin exposure or getting another possible cashflow source... but yeah, when I looked at Wind_FURY's comment again it does seem ambiguous regarding what he is referring to, and maybe he should explain himself a wee bit more better.
[edited out]
I don't know what to say to that in the context of my post. You're taking it out of context. Haha.
Well don't say anything then.
[edited out]
I neither said, nor suggested, that diversification will allow your investment to make greater returns. In fact, I said it wouldn't, and actually discouraged the other poster from doing it especially if his/her capital is very small.
I guess we are on the same page, then.
We are not asset managers who manage billions.
Well yeah.. so we do not have fiduciary requirements or other state-imposed requirements either. In other words, we likely have more flexibility to figure out how to go about our accumulation phases and also our maintenance stages, and there may well be points in which diversification makes sense depending on what we are wanting to achieve and if we are both designing and carrying out our strategies in ways that work towards accomplishing what we are wanting to achieve.
That kind of money needs diversification to reduce volatility and protect their capital against losses. We plebs should actually want more volatility. Although, it will increase risk, it will also increase our probability to make life-changing money. IE the early Bitcoin investors who had the conviction to HODL only Bitcoin.
This is bordering upon making sense because sure volatility to the upside (or number go up) is beneficial, and sure the ups and downs of the price can help in terms of being able to buy dips at various points in time in which cash is still coming in, and there can be some advantages to saving up and buying on dips to the extent that DCA is not completely employed.. but probably even DCA can be advantaged from volatility - at least in bitcoin's history since there have been long and drawn out periods of down and then explosive steps upwards in the BTC price and overall the trend has been up, even if normies might end up getting reckt as fuck if they try to play the volatility to their advantage and it does not work.. one of the ongoing risks of buying on dips in terms of making sure that buying is not delayed too much that it causes panic if the BTC price does not dip enough for the buys to happen how the normie BTC accumulator (you refer to as pleb) expected it to take place.
In contrast, if a pleb who has cash savings of $10,000 uses the same diversification strategy, it would profit only $3,000 for the year, which is also not bad, BUT barely life-changing. It's obviously better to HODL all in Bitcoin and make more than an average of 50% per year, and that's conservative.
Oh gawd.. the more you explain, the worse it gets... even though I do like that you are using something like $10k as a kind of example of how much value that a pleb might have to work with,
but I probably would like it even better if you describe income too.. because a normie/pleb might have $10k at one snap shot in time, and maybe your thinking about it as a snapshot value gets you to try to figure out whether to use all of it to buy bitcoin right now, or what are the various bitcoin price dipping points that you would want to deploy such cash (presuming that it is all available right now)..
so if we are assuming no other investments, and we are presuming that the money is completely available for bitcoin, we still might need to figure out some aspect of what is the anticipated cashflow in the next 6 months? and even that it is important to know what is the annual income? Is it $10k or is it $20k or is it $30k? or some other amount?
At some point, the amount invested may well justify some needs to start to diversify into other investments, even though the greedy lil bastard pleb is focusing on "getting rich quick" right?
Anyhow, is any more money coming in that might be available for bitcoin, or maybe you are presuming that the income stream for this particular pleb/normie is irrelevant because that income stream merely goes towards living expenses and the normie/pleb is just going to otherwise be living his life in the normie/pleb ways because he has already decided that he was ONLY going to be allocating $10k to bitcoin... and yeah a bit vague, but still I can somewhat work with you on it, including our agreement that it is just a matter of starting out with bitcoin, and then figuring out at what point the investment into bitcoin might start to reach a value in which some diversification might start to be justified, and if the $10k invested into bitcoin starts to grow, and maybe does a 3x (which would be $90k per BTC) or maybe a 10x (which would be $300k per BTC), then there might be some point that the person might want to start to diversify, which may or may not mean that selling coins would be the best option, but it might just mean that new cash is used to invest into other things other than bitcoin, since the bitcoin stash seems to be doing sufficiently well, even if maybe overall it is continuing to ongoingly fluctuate in value quite a bit.
Out of context. I was merely making an example for simplicity.
I was making some examples in order to flesh out possible scenarios that might be considered, but you seem to want to refuse to engage with actual (or hypothetical) facts that involve details to better help to understand what is being weighed and perhaps various ways that any normie/pleb might consider going forward.
So far as we know gold is a high-value investment for most people, when someone has a lot of money from selling land then most of them will turn it into gold.
That choice has not tended to work out very well for those gold holders in the past 10-20 years, and gold has barely kept up with inflation (at least in comparison to the dollar), and sure likely other countries gold has performed better in regard to the other various local currencies.
And then in regards to bitcoin, I doubt that gold is going to fare very well in the future, just like it has not fared very well relative to bitcoin in the past 10 years or so (and maybe it is not fair to go completely back to the very beginning of bitcoin, so we could cut out the first 3-4 years of bitcoin's price history and start from around 2013 - even if we start at top of BTC's price performance in 2013 (around $1,163) bitcoin has still greatly out-performed gold in that period, which seems quite likely to continue into the future, even if there are not any guarantees.. but surely gold does not seem to be a place to be putting much if any value.. especially if you know about bitcoin, and sure, if you want to put 10% of the value of your bitcoin holdings into gold, then even though that seems too much, it is not necessarily going to kill you, even though that gold portion of your investment portfolio does not seem to have good chances of doing very well, relative to bitcoin.
