Level of aggressiveness is measured based on discretionary income - not regular income. Do you need an example? Or maybe you need to explain why we would use regular income to figure out our level of aggressiveness?
This is quite true because both of these terms have their own meanings. Acting aggressively means using only the income we have freely. For someone to act in such a way is certainly a free way in terms of doing it in any way or at any time without disturbing their savings. Using these savings would certainly be a significant mistake for someone because these funds are not free funds that we can solely use. Savings are only used when we are in difficult times that befall us with various problems so the mechanism for using them is certainly different.
The saved funds are our assets that we already have so when someone wants to invest aggressively of course they do it with discretionary income meaning free funds without any ownership so their goal in doing it in a very aggressive way is to add to the number of assets they must have in the future so for them why they often do it using discretionary funds because these funds are for them to make as their capital in investing only to add to the saved funds because as I said above are saved funds as their assets for someone's future in achieving results with the aim of continuing to add to their assets even though they do it in the long term but what they want is the results of the investment that makes them increasingly add to the assets which are of course in ownership.
Perfectly said I don't think is a good idea to use your salary or life savings to invest in Bitcoin that is at owners risk even if you have other sources of income but you should at least know the limit and make sure it must be discretionary funds you can make use of it you don't have any problems at all, starting up with you can afford no regrets these method will keep you going with your discretionary income you can be able to invest in long-term.
It is not that easy. Sure people have access to their discretionary income as such income is coming in, yet they also might have various forms of back up funds and even other investments that they could reallocate into bitcoin, if they were to chose to do so... It is upon them to figure out priorities and allocation amounts based on where they are at and/or potentially projecting where they would like to go.
Of course, we frequently talk about initially building up bitcoin holdings from discretionary funds and at the same time building up bitcoin back up funds, yet as the back up funds get larger, some of them might reasonably be chosen to put into bitcoin and also other investments can be reallocated into bitcoin. Even though I frequently emphasize building the bitcoin and back up funds first, there also can be guys who already come to bitcoin with other investments, and they have to figure out the extent to which they are going to reallocate or maybe they just keep whatever traditional investments that they have and focus on bitcoin... And, another question might be whether they continue to add to their non-bitcoin investments or just let them ride. I doubt that the answer is exactly clear, even though having other assets can allow guys to invest more aggressively into bitcoin, since the other assets could serve as back up funds (or a cushion) in regards to prioritizing the bitcoin investment - in terms of touching the bitcoin investment last in the event that they might have to draw from back up funds in cases where income might have had gone down and/or expenses had gone up.
Your description of how to think about aggressive investing comes off in a confusing way. Your general idea that less aggressiveness from the start is a good one, yet the idea of being less aggressive is not about whether or not we are poor but instead how much we choose to use for our investment within the discretionary income that we have available. Of course, if someone is more poor, then it is less likely that he has discretionary funds, yet as soon as someone has discretionary funds, they can choose how much to invest versus putting into back up funds and/or discretionarily consuming.
The other matter related to changing aggressiveness based on dips seems like a bad idea to me, especially for newbies, and especially if we are gravitating towards thinking about bitcoin as an investment rather than trying to trade and/or gamble with it, and if we are investing, then likely our timeline would be 4-10 years or longer.
You are absolutely right that aggressiveness does not depend on whether someone is poor or rich rather it depends on discretionary income. However, if someone uses the money that remains after covering their essential living expenses to buy the dip (i.e. when the price drops by 20–30%) it is not necessarily a wrong decision.
Are you trying to presume that there are no trade offs? If a person has income coming in, then they can invest right away or they can hold some of the value back, so they are not necessarily being more aggressive because they choose to hold back for dips that may or may not happen.
I frequently suggest that guys should ongoingly buy bitcoin in their earliest times of accumulating bitcoin, so if they are holding back for dips they they are gambling on whether the BTC price may or may not end up happening.
Sure guys can make these kinds of choices in regards to how much they are putting into bitcoin on a regular and ongoing basis versus how much they are holding back for dips that may or may not happen.
What have you been doing? You have been registered here for nearly 3 years, and holding back for dips might not have had worked out very well in the past 3 years... even though it is possible holding back for dips might have had worked out for guys more recently in bitcoin (even though it still would not be a good practice to be holding back rather than ongoingly buying).
Even a person who might have had come to bitcoin in the past 16 months or so, let's say since the Trump Pump starting in November 2024. Maybe instead of ongoingly buying, they decided to wait.. so then they have cash building up for 16 months ($100 per week or whatever). At what point do they start to buy when the BTC price had dropped down from $126k to currently $70k, but they could have had gotten some BTC in the lower $60ks. How the fuck are they going to know in advance how much to continue to hold back and when to buy, rather than if they had just been ongoingly buying.
Even with you, do you think that there would have had been some kind of an advantage for you to be fucking around trying to figure out dips rather than ongoingly buying bitcoin since April 2023? And the longer that we are in bitcoin, the more clear the evidence that it is likely better to not be fucking around trying to figure out dips, but instead just ongoingly buying persistently, consistently, regularly and perhaps even aggressively.
If you had been investing $100 per week since April 2023, you would have had invested slightly more than $15k by now, and you would have had accumulated right around 0.285 BTC. What is wrong with that? You want more? You think that you could have had done better? I have my doubts.. especially if we look further out at guys who might have had been in bitcoin for more than a whole cycle and even over the course of a couple of cycles or more. They are likely way better off to not be fucking around trying to figure out dips until maybe at some point that they might have had already build up a good size BTC stash. Are you at such a point already?
The problem arises when new investors start investing aggressively without properly understanding the market because in that case the chances of loss become much higher.
Sure. If a guy accumulates a lot of BTC and even front loads without preparing for the dip, then he owns a lot of BTC with purchase prices that are higher than the current price, so in those cases he likely has to be able to continue to buy bitcoin, yet if he blew his whole wadd at higher prices, then he cannot continue to buy bitcoin.
Let's clarify this further with an example.
Suppose a rich person invests $500 per week from their discretionary income and a common person invests $200 a month. But none of us know who is more aggressive here because no one knows how much their discretionary income per week/month.
When you give your examples and set your parameters, you need to keep constant most of the parameters and then only change one or two variables in order to make your point. Otherwise your examples don't make any sense. There is no such thing as comparing levels of aggressiveness between people of different incomes unless you know some of the parameters, so what the fuck is the point of changing the incomes? you are not saying anything when you change so many things.
It may be that the person investing $200 has a total discretionary income of $200, while the person investing $500 has a total discretionary income of $800. So in this case, the ordinary person is more aggressive than the wealthy person.
Therefore, for new/ordinary/rich investors, trying to buy the dip with their discretionary income for the long term (4–10 years) is not necessarily risky rather it can help increase accumulation faster.
Since you fleshed out your example further and you suggested that the rich person is ONLY investing 62.5% of his discretionary income, and the poor person is investing 100% of his discretionary income, then at least you are saying something more meaningful, yet you still did not flesh out, exactly, what it is that you are wanting to say, except to point out that both of them are still within the bounds of their discretionary income.
Even as you point out in your example, the rich person is likely to be in a way better place based on his chosen level of aggressiveness (not to be 100%), so his better position is based on his having more flexibility in his discretionary funds rather than based on how much money he has, even though he also has a lot more money to work with too. You still did not do a very good job of fleshing it out, which also gets me to speculate that you are so much caught up in a mindset that whines about the advantages of the rich guy versus the poor guy rather than really attempting to grapple with the trade offs that present themselves based on differing choices of aggressiveness that any one person might have based on his own income and then his choices within how he ends up using his income.
Perfectly said I don't think is a good idea to use your salary or life savings to invest in Bitcoin that is at owners risk even if you have other sources of income but you should at least know the limit and make sure it must be discretionary funds you can make use of it you don't have any problems at all, starting up with you can afford no regrets these method will keep you going with your discretionary income you can be able to invest in long-term.
Whether it's right or wrong is secondary as I'm simply clarifying what I know. At least if it's beneficial to others it's probably a blessing for me. We're not in this forum to find fault or truth but simply to encourage each other so that our Bitcoin investments can all benefit.
We can use our salary for 5 or 8 years to invest but to do so we must have other funds available to meet our needs. For example someone whose salary is around 3 million rupiah per month is tied to a government contract because they work there. However to invest we must at least have another job or other income that we can use as a tool to ensure our investments are smooth and there are no problems with our investments. We want to use our fixed funds or salary to cover the needs of those we are responsible for.
Having different kinds of income streams is good as it puts one in to a good financial position which can as well aid having a reasonable position with your investment but it is not compulsory that you must have a multiple income streams before investing in Bitcoin because even with one income sources and one is able to figure out a discretionary income he can invest in Bitcoin with as little as possible while making out on improving their financial situation in other to increase their investment allocation, you should know that having a different income source is one thing then being able to figure out discretionary income in other to invest in another thing.
As a person income increases so does his spending.
Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense. Expenses may or may not increase based on additional income.. they are not the same thing and they are not necessarily correlated in any absolute way that cannot be overcome by choice.
It's much easier to find discretionary income if you have multiple sources of income.
That is not true either. There are certain kinds of jobs that pay way more than other kinds of jobs, so if your job pays high enough, then you don't necessarily need other sources of income in order to both cover your expenses and invest.
But for wealthy investors who are attracted to Bitcoin investing, accumulating Bitcoin can be a very easy thing to do if they are mentally prepared. I know an investor who regularly accumulate Bitcoin and probably around $500-$1k per week according to his comment. I often take advice from him but his problem is that he uses multiple portfolios and has one for long term Bitcoin accumulation and another for short term trading. For an experienced investor like him any decision may be right but for new investors like us it is necessary to accumulate Bitcoin through discretionary income and if cash funds are available we can allocate almost the majority of the discretionary income to Bitcoin from the beginning of the investment.
Your point here is a bit aloof, yet it seems that if a guy attempts to customize his bitcoin investment to his own situation, then there is a combination of mental preparedness that goes along with practice, and generally with discretionary funds it is not good to maximize the discretionary funds put into bitcoin investment unless there is a certain amount of back up funds that are already in place in case that we might make mistakes. Another thing with discretionary funds is that we likely need to account for discretionary spending, so in the end it tends to be good to think about discretionary funds in their abilities to be used to invest, save (back up funds) and discretionarily consume.
By the way, if you don't know the difference between basic consumption and discretionary consumption, there sometimes can be better understanding of discretionary funds to at least consider the various expenses that you have and whether they are wants or needs and whether they have to be spent within that pay period versus if they can be (or should be) deferred to another pay period in the future.
For example, sometimes with food we can defer our expenses, yet there is also value in consuming some portion of food that is fresh and nutritious, yet sometimes we might not even know which foods are more nutritious than other foods, and we might even consider some items that are not really good food to be food and/or even to be part of basic expenses.. and so sometimes we might even need to educate ourselves and/or think about what kinds of food we are consuming, and even certain kinds of food has a shelf life and we can stock up on the food in bulk, which might save us a lot of money as compared with buying it in smaller portions. There also might be some kinds of fresh food that we could buy in bulk and share the expenses with neighbors and/or relatives and end up getting more nutritious foods.
