JJG’s Outline of Bitcoin Investment Ideas

[Shaponzy]

Increasing aggressiveness does not come from discretionary income increasing, but instead choosing to invest higher amounts within the same income.

So for example, it could be argued that if a guy had weekly discretionary funds of $100, and he had been investing 33% or $33 into bitcoin each week, then I doubt that his aggressiveness had increased from the mere fact that his weekly discretionary income doubled and he also doubled his investment amount.  So if his discretionary income went up to $200 per week and he started to invest $66 per week into bitcoin, it seems to me that his level of aggressiveness is the same - 33%.

You are correct, and I can attest that alot of people usually uses the terms interchangeably, they do mixed being aggressive with more incomes, I see the agreesiveness as a rate not just an amounts, okay if we are to talk about the 33%, you can't actually be agreesiveness if the percentages stays at the same point, but let say you only scale it and the risks still remains at the same level. Agreesiveness is let say for instance now, BTC 1 has like $100 worth of bitcoin as the discretionary income and decide to invest $33 that's (33%).
BTC 2 has discretionary income of $200 and decide to invest $66 which is same (33%). Then BTC 3 has $100 and invested $80 that's (80%). So the second one is not more aggressive than the first one while the third one has done most agreesiveness, even if he invested less dollars the second one. But the second one has more incomes, not being aggressive.

[JayJuanGee]

Increasing aggressiveness does not come from discretionary income increasing, but instead choosing to invest higher amounts within the same income.

So for example, it could be argued that if a guy had weekly discretionary funds of $100, and he had been investing 33% or $33 into bitcoin each week, then I doubt that his aggressiveness had increased from the mere fact that his weekly discretionary income doubled and he also doubled his investment amount.  So if his discretionary income went up to $200 per week and he started to invest $66 per week into bitcoin, it seems to me that his level of aggressiveness is the same - 33%.

I absolutely agree with this distinction. I also don’t think becoming more aggressive should simply mean investing more money because your discretionary income has increased. It really makes sense to look at the percentage of the discretionary funds you’re putting into bitcoin.

Using the same example, if someone has $100 in weekly discretionary funds and invest $33, they are allocating 33%. If their discretionary funds later increase to $200 and they increase their bitcoin investment to $66, the amount invested has doubled but their allocation is still 30%. So it’s fair to say their investment has increased, but their level of aggressiveness has not. IMO it would  become more aggressive, only if they start putting a larger percentage, let say maybe 40%,50% or more into the investment.

Level of aggressiveness is a choice.

So the guy whose discretionary income had doubled from $100 to $200, he may well decide to keep his savings and discretionary consumption at $33 per week each and then to put all of the extra discretionary income into bitcoin, which would mean that his investment into bitcoin would have had ended going up from $33 per week to $133.33 per week, and surely that is a choice, and most likely we could characterize his level of aggressiveness as going up, yet it may well not be unreasonable. It is his choice on how to allocate and how to balance his investing with his savings and his discretionary consumption.

[B-BossMan]

Level of aggressiveness is a choice.

So the guy whose discretionary income had doubled from $100 to $200, he may well decide to keep his savings and discretionary consumption at $33 per week each and then to put all of the extra discretionary income into bitcoin, which would mean that his investment into bitcoin would have had ended going up from $33 per week to $133.33 per week, and surely that is a choice, and most likely we could characterize his level of aggressiveness as going up, yet it may well not be unreasonable. It is his choice on how to allocate and how to balance his investing with his savings and his discretionary consumption.

You are right that the aggressiveness is actually game's of choice, and having or earning higher income doesn't mean the investor should increase thier own bitcoin, the main thing is the investor's mindset or decisions, if after every expenses are being settled down, it now depends on personal reasons to make a decision, whether to put more additional incomes into bitcoin or not. Example now, if am earning $200 weekly, I may feel comfortable to put $50 into bitcoin investment, while another investor like me that is still earning same amounts may only go for $30, it's still normal things as its game of choices, he may not be able to afford $50 due to one or two circumstances. Moreover, the $200 amounts doesn't actually determine WHT we mean by aggressiveness, but the investor financial stability and how much risks they can afford to matters alots.

[Powerjumboo]

This here is totally wrong advice, you can’t be serious with this! You’re encouraging investors to go beyond their means on the basis that their discretionary income may increase which is speculative and highly uncertain and after you concluded that you’re against anything that could lead to pressure in the course of investing in Bitcoin.

Investing beyond your means is one of the biggest pressures in Bitcoin investment, so you’ve ended up contradicting yourself and not making a valid point.
Going aggressive is good, but don’t because of it and put yourself in unnecessary pressure like going beyond your means to invest.

It is not certain whether income will increase in the future. Increasing the amount of investment today based on possible future income is not a responsible approach. The amount of investment should be determined by the current real cash flow, discretionary income after meeting necessary expenses, and sufficient financial security for emergencies. One person's discretionary income and financial security are not the same as another. Therefore, there is no universal rule that the same percentage or the same amount will be suitable for everyone. It is more reasonable to invest according to the current ability, and only reconsider the investment amount when the income or financial capacity actually increases.

To invest, you must invest according to your ability. You should never invest by borrowing beyond your ability. Because when a person invests by borrowing, that person will face more losses. Because if the market temporarily declines after investing by borrowing, in that case, if the lender comes to him and asks for the loan money, he will either have to borrow again and repay the loan money or sell it at a loss to pay the loan money. Therefore, it is always better to invest according to your ability.

[Futurexxx]

To invest, you must invest according to your ability. You should never invest by borrowing beyond your ability. Because when a person invests by borrowing, that person will face more losses. Because if the market temporarily declines after investing by borrowing, in that case, if the lender comes to him and asks for the loan money, he will either have to borrow again and repay the loan money or sell it at a loss to pay the loan money. Therefore, it is always better to invest according to your ability.

I find it very funny that someone in his right senses will borrow beyond his ability to pay back, because if truly anyone is actually doing such, that person is fucking himself up in a pathetic way, because such person will surely default on the loan.

Borrowing money to invest in Bitcoin is not entirely bad if you have the capacity to pay back from another source, and your ability to pay back have nothing to do with your Bitcoin investment, but if you borrow with the intention of paying back from your Bitcoin investment, it will never end well, since Bitcoin value may be down when the loan repayment may be due, but a newbie investor should never consider a loan regardless of him having the ability to pay it back from another source, since he wouldn't have the right understanding on how to go about it well.