Does the DCA strategy inspire newbies to invest?

[abaeze]

DCA strategy is not only suitable for newbies to use in Bitcoin investments, but has been also found to be more applicable to anyone interested to invest on a monthly occasion depending on their source of income, one of the best strategy to adopt is this, because it's helps to afford investing by taking an entry upon the market falls at each month, this is why some will say always buy the dip, it means a lot because we are expected to invest when the market falls and their hold until it rises before selling.

DCA strategy definitely works the way you said, but I think trying too closely to buy the dip can actually look confusing to some newbies. In my own understanding, it’s better to focus on consistent accumulation instead of timing the market, with DCA, the main goals is to gradually build up your bitcoin investment over a period of time, irrespective of weather the price is up or down. This approach really removes tensions or fear of guessing market movements and make investments more disciplined and less one's emotional.
 Even with the small amount, anyone can start their Bitcoin investment journey and stay consistent. Of course, when buying the dip or during the dips is a great opportunity and should be taken advantage of when possible,most expecially if someone has extra funds. But it should not be the only focus, because some folks waited too long for the perfect dip and end up missing out everything completely.moreover steady accumulation through the Dollar-Cost Averaging is better, while buying when  there's dip is just an additional bonus, not the main strategy.

Yes, DCA is an effective strategy for all types of people, such as new and experienced investors, low and high income earners, and even those who earn on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. It will be an effective strategy for all these categories of people only if they can manage their long-term investments with patience and discipline for the planned period.

It is not that I did it properly for 1-2 months and then stopped it for any reason as per my wish, rather it is a strategy that gives more importance to discipline and regular efforts to continue a task than the amount of money.That is, if you keep depositing $20 worth of Bitcoin every week for 3 years and your friend deposits $200 worth of BTC in one month and nothing in the next month as per his ability then you are more successful in investing than your friend because by doing DCA you got to deposit BTC regularly for a certain period of time.

However, remember one thing that DCA is just a strategy but the ability and willingness to take risk will all depend on your financial condition or ability, not on any strategy. Another thing is that buying "buy the dip" and selling it again when the price rises is not an investment strategy but it is just an effective step for trading.

[Bd officer]

If a newcomer don't have emergency funds in placed and he start investing in Bitcoin. Now after 6 six months of bitcoin accumulation there is a need of money then what newbie will do in that case, he has no other option but to sell his bitcoin. Now this will keep happening again and again if you don't have emergency funds in place. If you want to invest for long term then you need emergency funds because that will give you necessary financial cushion in case there is urgent requirement of money. 

In fact, emergency fund is very important to deal with emergency situations so it should be taken seriously. But if a new investor does not have an emergency fund but plans to invest in Bitcoin, then he can focus on emergency fund along with investing. What I mean is that buy BTC using DCA strategy with some amount from your discretionary income and also keep some amount for emergency fund, this way you can manage both emergency fund and investment.

[Merit.s]

If a newcomer don't have emergency funds in placed and he start investing in Bitcoin. Now after 6 six months of bitcoin accumulation there is a need of money then what newbie will do in that case, he has no other option but to sell his bitcoin. Now this will keep happening again and again if you don't have emergency funds in place. If you want to invest for long term then you need emergency funds because that will give you necessary financial cushion in case there is urgent requirement of money. 

Is not a must that a brand new investor should have his emergency funds in place before starting his bitcoin investment. If the new investor does not have any form of backup funds before he decides to start his bitcoin investment, he doesn't need to start building his emergency fund first. Since he has his discretionary income, he should start immediately with the common sense that he has.

He can start DCAing and start building his emergency funds simultaneously, with his bitcoin investment by dividing his discretionary income in three equal parts. One part for his regular weekly DCA, the second part for building his emergency funds and the last part for his discretionary consumption because he's a no coiner. He shouldn't delay from getting started in the name of building an emergency funds first because that will make him miss a lot of opportunities in the market that he should have used to build his bitcoin investment into a certain level.

Waiting is never a good strategy when it comes to bitcoin investment because it's an obstacle to steady growth of your bitcoin portfolio.

[BluebloodCXVI]

As long as the investor is using his discretionary income to be aggressive in buying bitcoin there is nothing wrong/ bad in it aggressiveness with out over doing it is what most investors does most expecially when the price is low is a way of buying more bitcoin and its not going to affect them because they use money they can afford to loss, when people get carried away with the sweetness of the market and buy with money they can't afford to loss that's where we can condemn it.

It is not bad to buy bitcoin aggressively. Two things that needs to be considered while doing so is to buy with the amount that you can afford and to buy with understanding,  and if one is buying this way their is nothing wrong with it provided the target is to hodl and  not buying and later on you think of do otherwise.  The reason why people invest in bitcoin aggressively is because they understand the value and while they can afford to buy in this manner it is an opportunity.

If your finances are not well organized then you shouldn’t be thinking of going aggressive in your bitcoin investing at all, that’s how people get wrecked.
Folks should focus on building up their cash inflow, so when they’re comfortable enough, they can choose to raise the bar and put in more than they used to.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

If a newcomer don't have emergency funds in placed and he start investing in Bitcoin. Now after 6 six months of bitcoin accumulation there is a need of money then what newbie will do in that case, he has no other option but to sell his bitcoin. Now this will keep happening again and again if you don't have emergency funds in place. If you want to invest for long term then you need emergency funds because that will give you necessary financial cushion in case there is urgent requirement of money. 

In fact, emergency fund is very important to deal with emergency situations so it should be taken seriously. But if a new investor does not have an emergency fund but plans to invest in Bitcoin, then he can focus on emergency fund along with investing. What I mean is that buy BTC using DCA strategy with some amount from your discretionary income and also keep some amount for emergency fund, this way you can manage both emergency fund and investment.

Doing both together makes sense, especially for someone just starting out…. You don’t have to go all on one, and ignore the other one..

As long as the person is using their discretionary income and not forcing it, splitting the funds between DCA and emergency funds is a good balance... With that you’re not completely missing out on the market while also building some safety funds on the side... Like that it feels more realistic and better..

[Tmoonz]

Frequently, I like to suggest that folks who are investing into bitcoin, should try to figure out ways to invest into bitcoin as aggressively as they are able to do without overdoing it.  For sure, guys with strong cashflow management will be in a better position to invest aggressively into bitcoin as compared with folks who either don't have strong cashflow management and/or are otherwise unorganized in their finances.

Another thing is that level of aggressiveness or whimpiness is totally a discretionary matter in which each person is completely free to choose their level of aggressiveness or their level of whimpiness when it comes to how much priority they give to bitcoin investing and how much priority they give to strengthening their cashflow management systems/practices (which includes the level of their back up fund building and/or maintenance)

For a low-income person, there are many obstacles to being aggressive, even if they are willing to invest aggressively, their financial situation stands in the way of being aggressive.

Being aggressive is a description of how a person is investing within their abilities. It is not about how much income you have.

Yes, of course, a rich person has more options.

A poor person can still choose his level of aggressiveness or not within the scope of his discretionary funds.  And, yeah, if they barely have any discretionary funds, they might not even be able to invest in bitcoin since they don't have enough... I understand that.

A poor man can be aggressive as  can a rich man, they don't have to be accumulating at the same rate since a person aggressively can only be determined by the own discretionary fund so if a person has a monthly discretionary fund of $50 and they are investing $40 into their bitcoin they can be said to be more aggressive then someone who has $500 in discretionary fund but is investing $250, the second person is investing more than they first but the first person is investing more aggressively then the second so their aggressiveness isn't determined by how much they are investing but by how much of their discretionary fund there are investing.

I have come to understand and agree that personal aggressiveness should be calculated based on the amount of discretionary income a person may choose to invest rather than the overall size of the discretionary income this is because a man with a large amount of discretionary income can decide to invest lesser amount of his discretionary income in to Bitcoin and can decide to use the other remaining part of his discretionary income on other things than investing in Bitcoin and the reverse can be the case on a man who has a small amount of discretionary income . How much of your discretionary income you decides to invest is the measure of your aggressiveness.

[devouring-DARKNESS]

Frequently, I like to suggest that folks who are investing into bitcoin, should try to figure out ways to invest into bitcoin as aggressively as they are able to do without overdoing it.  For sure, guys with strong cashflow management will be in a better position to invest aggressively into bitcoin as compared with folks who either don't have strong cashflow management and/or are otherwise unorganized in their finances.

Another thing is that level of aggressiveness or whimpiness is totally a discretionary matter in which each person is completely free to choose their level of aggressiveness or their level of whimpiness when it comes to how much priority they give to bitcoin investing and how much priority they give to strengthening their cashflow management systems/practices (which includes the level of their back up fund building and/or maintenance)

For a low-income person, there are many obstacles to being aggressive, even if they are willing to invest aggressively, their financial situation stands in the way of being aggressive.

Being aggressive is a description of how a person is investing within their abilities. It is not about how much income you have.

Yes, of course, a rich person has more options.

A poor person can still choose his level of aggressiveness or not within the scope of his discretionary funds.  And, yeah, if they barely have any discretionary funds, they might not even be able to invest in bitcoin since they don't have enough... I understand that.

A poor man can be aggressive as  can a rich man, they don't have to be accumulating at the same rate since a person aggressively can only be determined by the own discretionary fund so if a person has a monthly discretionary fund of $50 and they are investing $40 into their bitcoin they can be said to be more aggressive then someone who has $500 in discretionary fund but is investing $250, the second person is investing more than they first but the first person is investing more aggressively then the second so their aggressiveness isn't determined by how much they are investing but by how much of their discretionary fund there are investing.

I have come to understand and agree that personal aggressiveness should be calculated based on the amount of discretionary income a person may choose to invest rather than the overall size of the discretionary income this is because a man with a large amount of discretionary income can decide to invest lesser amount of his discretionary income in to Bitcoin and can decide to use the other remaining part of his discretionary income on other things than investing in Bitcoin and the reverse can be the case on a man who has a small amount of discretionary income . How much of your discretionary income you decides to invest is the measure of your aggressiveness.

Aggressiveness is personal and depends entirely on the discretionary fund of the individual, it doesn't matter how much the next person is using to accumulate bitcoin, it has no effect on whether or not you yourself is being aggressive, the total size of your discretionary fund isn't what important with being aggressive but rather what's important is how much of that discretionary fund you are using to invest, a smaller percentage means less aggressive and a higher percentage means more aggressive, the only factor that matters id the individual's/investor's discretionary fund and how much of it they are willing to invest in bitcoin with.

[Silikiem]

As long as the investor is using his discretionary income to be aggressive in buying bitcoin there is nothing wrong/ bad in it aggressiveness with out over doing it is what most investors does most expecially when the price is low is a way of buying more bitcoin and its not going to affect them because they use money they can afford to loss, when people get carried away with the sweetness of the market and buy with money they can't afford to loss that's where we can condemn it.

Bitcoin investment should be focused on, whenever an investor focuses on Bitcoin investment, he will be able to purchase Bitcoin with his desired income. Many people condemn being aggressive in Bitcoin investment but this is not at all appropriate, because if Bitcoin is invested with prudent income, that investment will never fail. Because in the current position, the price of Bitcoin is under sufficient control, this is the only attractive time to invest.
If people's money is to be used properly, then investing in Bitcoin according to the DCA method is the best plan. This is the only suitable method to eliminate economic shortages in the future.

How do you mean by the price of bitcoin is under sufficient control, are you the one controlling the price of bitcoin to say that the price is under sufficient control. Bitcoins price is not stable, so you can’t say that the price is under sufficient control because no one is responsible for the control of bitcoins price fluctuations as there are so many factors which affects the volatility of bitcoin and most of this factor are very much unknown to us.

Again, who told you that this is the only attractive time to buy bitcoin and invest as a long term investor there’s no time you can’t buy bitcoin at any market price, there’s no time kept aside as the only attractive time to buy and invest in bitcoin because the DCA strategy made it possible for investors to regularly buy bitcoin at any market price, what is most important is to have a discretionary income and for me I think that the only attractive time to buy bitcoin is when we have our discretionary income available.

[PhilosopherKing]

By definition, buying bitcoin aggressively and buying bitcoin consistently are not the same thing. 

The two words have different meanings. 

For example, you could consistently buy bitcoin in a whimpy way or you could non-consistently buy bitcoin in an aggressive way.

yes, your are right the two of them are not the same thing. Consistency is how ongoing a person do their accumulation. Aggressive buying is not usually ongoing, it is about how much person can put inside bitcoin at a time. For example, person that is receiving a salary of $150, he is consistent if the person is investing ongoingly with $40 every week till he has full stash of bitcoin.

But the person is aggressive if he is investing $100 in bitcoin at once without halfing the money. Using the two of them to accumulate bitcoin is a good thing because consistency with what can be afforded to loose can build discipline to slowly grow your stash and aggressive investment when person have discretionary income to do it can speed up person investment.

[ruykeri]

If your finances are not well organized then you shouldn’t be thinking of going aggressive in your bitcoin investing at all, that’s how people get wrecked.
Folks should focus on building up their cash inflow, so when they’re comfortable enough, they can choose to raise the bar and put in more than they used to.

An investor will not invest beyond his discretionary income. And how much of his discretionary income he is doing DCA with, actually determines how aggressive he is. If the amount of DCA can be increased by increasing cash flow or increasing income sources, then it cannot be called aggressiveness. If a person's responsibilities and daily expenses are unstable, then he should not invest too aggressively. But if the expenses are low or the expenses are stable and regular, then he can do DCA up to 70% to 80% of his discretionary income. It completely depends on the overall financial condition and lifestyle of the person.

[alankasman]

An investor will not invest beyond his discretionary income. And how much of his discretionary income he is doing DCA with, actually determines how aggressive he is. If the amount of DCA can be increased by increasing cash flow or increasing income sources, then it cannot be called aggressiveness. If a person's responsibilities and daily expenses are unstable, then he should not invest too aggressively. But if the expenses are low or the expenses are stable and regular, then he can do DCA up to 70% to 80% of his discretionary income. It completely depends on the overall financial condition and lifestyle of the person.

Of course this is true. However I see this issue not only for investors but more generally because everyone will not invest more than their discretionary income. This means that sometimes the main reason is that many other things must be prioritized, such as children's education and other needs.

Determining how much someone should spend aggressively or not is certainly a personal choice or decision. Whether someone will engage in aggressive behavior is likely due to their discretionary income exceeding their primary needs. This is because aggressive behavior eliminates the need to think about the essentials which are part of their responsibilities. This is the advantage of someone with a stable income or more than their basic needs. This is different from someone with very limited discretionary income. They often forget about engaging in aggressive behavior sometimes even meeting their needs. They think that their income is only sufficient for their basic needs and they will not think about anything else. This does not mean they do not want to engage in aggressive behavior but they are simply constrained by the financial constraints they receive which only cover their basic needs. They cannot do other things that are necessary because their limited or limited income forces them to focus on their essentials.

[cyberninja2]

yes, your are right the two of them are not the same thing. Consistency is how ongoing a person do their accumulation. Aggressive buying is not usually ongoing, it is about how much person can put inside bitcoin at a time. For example, person that is receiving a salary of $150, he is consistent if the person is investing ongoingly with $40 every week till he has full stash of bitcoin.

This concept should be implemented by all parties because someone who invests with any income as you clearly illustrate is very appropriate. Sometimes someone with an income of $150 doesn't have to invest the same amount for example dividing it in half to $75. I don't think that's necessary. The most important thing for example with an income of $150 we invest a portion of that amount $60. Even if some might say that $60 is too little it doesn't matter. The most important thing is that we invest consistently every time we have monthly or weekly income. We are people who always prioritize focus and consistency in investing. If we invest half of our income it certainly won't be enough to cover our expenses. Therefore this is what is necessary to invest more towards our needs than towards our investments. Even if it's small we should invest with confidence and consistency based on the results we get so we can continue to invest sustainably.

[Charcol]

yes, your are right the two of them are not the same thing. Consistency is how ongoing a person do their accumulation. Aggressive buying is not usually ongoing, it is about how much person can put inside bitcoin at a time. For example, person that is receiving a salary of $150, he is consistent if the person is investing ongoingly with $40 every week till he has full stash of bitcoin.

This concept should be implemented by all parties because someone who invests with any income as you clearly illustrate is very appropriate. Sometimes someone with an income of $150 doesn't have to invest the same amount for example dividing it in half to $75. I don't think that's necessary. The most important thing for example with an income of $150 we invest a portion of that amount $60. Even if some might say that $60 is too little it doesn't matter.

First of all, I would like to say that it is never advisable to invest with any income. Investment should be done only from discretionary income. Be it a small amount or a large amount. Next, I will say that the investment amount is not determined by the total income. Rather, the investment amount should be determined by the discretionary income.

Suppose, if someone's monthly income is $150 and he invests $75, then although it sounds like aggressive savings, in reality it can be risky. Especially if this $75 is not discretionary income and he does not already have any funds.

[WIYO1]

If your finances are not well organized then you shouldn’t be thinking of going aggressive in your bitcoin investing at all, that’s how people get wrecked.
Folks should focus on building up their cash inflow, so when they’re comfortable enough, they can choose to raise the bar and put in more than they used to.

An investor will not invest beyond his discretionary income. And how much of his discretionary income he is doing DCA with, actually determines how aggressive he is. If the amount of DCA can be increased by increasing cash flow or increasing income sources, then it cannot be called aggressiveness. If a person's responsibilities and daily expenses are unstable, then he should not invest too aggressively. But if the expenses are low or the expenses are stable and regular, then he can do DCA up to 70% to 80% of his discretionary income. It completely depends on the overall financial condition and lifestyle of the person.

That was an interesting way to view the situation. DCA does not merely refer to investing regularly. DCA also includes investing in a manner that is within the boundaries of each person's individual comfort level financially. If someone has a consistently stable income and expenses, they may feel more confident in increasing the investment amount allocated to their discretionary income. When you increase your DCA through additional earnings, you aren't being aggressive. you're simply increasing your ability to increase your DCA. If you don't know what your level of responsibility will be in the future, doing so conservatively will reduce the amount of financial pressure experienced and provide you with the ability to maintain your plan for the long-term.

[Obulis]

When they have gained confidence in bitcoin, they can increase their DCA amount and buy aggressively to cover up those times that they were buying little by little.

I have my doubts about the abilities for any of us to make up for our past times in which we might have had been investing into bitcoin more whimpily.  Sure, it is an idea to invest more aggressively to make up for lost time.. - yet we still have limits in regards to how aggressive we can be..

So let's say that a guy learned about bitcoin, and he decided that he was going to invest into it at around $30 per week, while he is orienting himself and becoming more comfortable.. so perhaps he knows that he could invest $100 per week, but he just is not comfortable enough...

So as he invests he little by little raises his amount, and maybe he even goes up to $120 per week or even $150 per week, and part of his motive is to make up for the times in which he was more whimpy.. I question the extent to which that would work.. even though I do recognize that people will do things like that... there are even provisions in American investment laws that gives tax benefits and even abilities to "make up" invest once a guy gets over 50 years old.. under the assumption that sometimes guys will realize that they had not invested enough prior to 50 years old, so when they turn 50, they are allowed to invest at a higher limit into some of the tax benefitted accounts.

I don’t think you can fully make up for lost time in investing by just suddenly going aggressive. Time in the market is a compounding engine and this means that it grows on itself over time so if a person spends a long time under-investing, increasing contributions can later improve outcomes but it can’t rewind the compounding that the person has already missed because that gap is permanent in a mathematical sense so you can only reduce the gap but you can’t erase it completely.

In the first place there's no point trying to make up because what is happening (as in the make up) is just happening on its time. Figuring what best to do after obvious past under investing for me is not in any trying to make up any thing but it means doing the best you can do at the time, although the awakening is as a result of the clear fact of past under investing.
So going aggressive is for the time being not to make up for the time lost because you can have healthy investment in the past and still go aggressive in the present. Such gap is there mathematically and otherwise.

[NewRevelation]

yes, your are right the two of them are not the same thing. Consistency is how ongoing a person do their accumulation. Aggressive buying is not usually ongoing, it is about how much person can put inside bitcoin at a time. For example, person that is receiving a salary of $150, he is consistent if the person is investing ongoingly with $40 every week till he has full stash of bitcoin.

This concept should be implemented by all parties because someone who invests with any income as you clearly illustrate is very appropriate. Sometimes someone with an income of $150 doesn't have to invest the same amount for example dividing it in half to $75. I don't think that's necessary. The most important thing for example with an income of $150 we invest a portion of that amount $60. Even if some might say that $60 is too little it doesn't matter. The most important thing is that we invest consistently every time we have monthly or weekly income. We are people who always prioritize focus and consistency in investing. If we invest half of our income it certainly won't be enough to cover our expenses. Therefore this is what is necessary to invest more towards our needs than towards our investments. Even if it's small we should invest with confidence and consistency based on the results we get so we can continue to invest sustainably.

I disagree with your first line of statement, that investing with any amount is appropriate. No, it isn't appropriate and is a wrong investment mentality because you might end of either over investing which will cost you your investment later. The best income to invest with is your Discretionary income, that is after you have settled your basic needs.


Secondly, your illustration of investment $60 out of $150 income is wrong, because, investments are soposed to be made from your discretionary, not your main income. So, when the salary comes, its best you first settle your basic needs, and then the left over which is your discretionary can be used for investment, also putting in mind that you have to build your emergency funds too from the same discretionary income. So, investment comes from a well calculated income allocation.

[Bigjoe33]

By definition, buying bitcoin aggressively and buying bitcoin consistently are not the same thing. 

The two words have different meanings. 

For example, you could consistently buy bitcoin in a whimpy way or you could non-consistently buy bitcoin in an aggressive way.

yes, your are right the two of them are not the same thing. Consistency is how ongoing a person do their accumulation. Aggressive buying is not usually ongoing, it is about how much person can put inside bitcoin at a time. For example, person that is receiving a salary of $150, he is consistent if the person is investing ongoingly with $40 every week till he has full stash of bitcoin.

But the person is aggressive if he is investing $100 in bitcoin at once without halfing the money. Using the two of them to accumulate bitcoin is a good thing because consistency with what can be afforded to loose can build discipline to slowly grow your stash and aggressive investment when person have discretionary income to do it can speed up person investment.

Consistency or aggressiveness aside, don't you think it is wrong for someone with an income of $150 to invest $100 all at once all in the name of been aggressive without first figuring out his discretionary?

And the other one, investing $40 consistently from his income of $150 as you mentioned above without first determining his discretionary income for the said main income?

Your illustrations are quite understandable, but carrying out any investment without first determining your discretionary income are dangerous to the investment and is not a healthy investment practice. The best is to first always determine your discretionary before you can begin to be aggressive in your buys to ensure you don't sell in panic

[marrcelo]

yeah dca saved a lot of people from panic selling at the
bottom, no strategy is more boring and more effective
at the same time

[Olatundespo]

Aggressiveness is personal and depends entirely on the discretionary fund of the individual, it doesn't matter how much the next person is using to accumulate bitcoin, it has no effect on whether or not you yourself is being aggressive, the total size of your discretionary fund isn't what important with being aggressive but rather what's important is how much of that discretionary fund you are using to invest, a smaller percentage means less aggressive and a higher percentage means more aggressive, the only factor that matters id the individual's/investor's discretionary fund and how much of it they are willing to invest in bitcoin with.

It is better to be aggressive in Bitcoin accumulation, as it will easily allow you to reach the over accumulation stage in a short time. It is important to remember that while you are aggressively accumulating Bitcoin, you should consider the fundamentals of long term investing, such as whether you have an emergency fund. Whether the flow of discretionary income will be regular. Whether you have sufficient funds and cash funds to meet your household expenses. If you are in a good position in all these areas, it will be justified to continue aggressive DCA for Bitcoin accumulation. You should rely on your personal financial capacity to determine the size of your emergency fund. Consider your cash fund criteria to measure what percentage of your discretionary income to allocate to Bitcoin accumulation.

[Zackz5000]

Aggressiveness is personal and depends entirely on the discretionary fund of the individual, it doesn't matter how much the next person is using to accumulate bitcoin, it has no effect on whether or not you yourself is being aggressive, the total size of your discretionary fund isn't what important with being aggressive but rather what's important is how much of that discretionary fund you are using to invest, a smaller percentage means less aggressive and a higher percentage means more aggressive, the only factor that matters id the individual's/investor's discretionary fund and how much of it they are willing to invest in bitcoin with.

It is better to be aggressive in Bitcoin accumulation, as it will easily allow you to reach the over accumulation stage in a short time. It is important to remember that while you are aggressively accumulating Bitcoin, you should consider the fundamentals of long term investing, such as whether you have an emergency fund. Whether the flow of discretionary income will be regular. Whether you have sufficient funds and cash funds to meet your household expenses. If you are in a good position in all these areas, it will be justified to continue aggressive DCA for Bitcoin accumulation. You should rely on your personal financial capacity to determine the size of your emergency fund. Consider your cash fund criteria to measure what percentage of your discretionary income to allocate to Bitcoin accumulation.

People should always try to invest base on their financial capacity i believe there are rich investors who mostly lump sum this is base on their strength as long as it's not going to affect them. Accumulating Bitcoin aggressively is good provided it's done with our discretionary income when all necessary needs has been kept in place, there are two things i dislike in Bitcoin investment when a folk is accumulating Bitcoin outside his discretionary income that's using money that is not his discretionary income to accumulate Bitcoin and waiting for the price of Bitcoin to dip before accumulating when you haven't even gotten to your over accumulation stage.