Bitcoin in the next decade

[betswift]

The worst part is, the core reason for the bitcoin creation is beginning to feel less important in the mind of the today's people. I mean, only few persons care about decentralization probably because they've been blinded by the fiat system for too long that they fail to grasp the importance of a decentralized currency. Aside the risk of getting scammed via p2p to buy or sell i don't see any reason for making use of a centralized exchange when you know that you'll be anti-decentralizing your bitcoin investment with the current regulations by the government on exchanges.  In a decade from now, I fear what the faith of bitcoin would be as regard decentralization or immunity from a third party's dealings. The regulation and tax implementation might result to a discouraging approach to DCA strategy on small capital investors, especially when they are taxed when buying and selling Bitcoin.
Strike CEO Jack Mallers in a press meeting highlighted that being the top holder of bitcoin is his goal this year, we dont know for sure what other institutions are planning but the idea of compelling everyone to comply to KYC in other to buy or sell in the future is very realistic.

DEXes are the way out, as well as the cold storages which are set up probably.

No matter what, we should be ready for any kind of development regarding the regulations.

[SilentEcho]

I feel like we’re losing Bitcoin’s soul—Decentralization and Privacy—just for a higher price tag. Most newcomers don’t care about the tech anymore; they’re just here for the "Number Go Up" gains.
​It’s alarming to see people on X calling privacy advocates "scammers" while cheering for KYC and ETFs. We keep making excuses for these compromises, but isn't this exactly how Bitcoin gets domesticated? We survived years without government validation—why are we so desperate for it now?
​I’m really worried we’re trading freedom for a spot in a Wall Street portfolio. Does anyone else feel like the original ethos is fading?

[snowpega]

I did a quick glance through my post, and I don't see any spot where my post was erroneously quoting anything else.  If you want me to change something (or to edit something) then you might need to point out the specific location/part of my post to me more specifically, since I don't see any mistakes or any causing of confusion in my post.

Sure, dear, I can mention it for you, but that post is just mentioned above the most recent of above where I replied that last time, so I thought it would be easy for you to find, but I can understand and appreciate you on your best work as I see you, really reply every user with your best knowledge so this can be the reason that you are unable to locate that post easily.

[edited out]

I have seen a survey report a long time ago somewhere, and from that report, I came to know that only 7% of the world population has invested in the crypto space. This leaves a message for us that it is still not too late, and we are still early birds as part of this space. So, regrading on what we have missed already will demotivate us to move on and stop us from growing up. This is why I believe that we should keep investing in Bitcoin whenever the market gives the best opportunity to accumulate more or whenever we have spare available funds to invest in Bitcoin.

In this way, we can make our average best by investing in Bitcoin after different periods of time. Well, everyone has their own approach to investing in Bitcoin depending on their situation or condition. Like, if one has big amount of saving in the form of fiat and he want to covert in into bitcoin with the mindset of long term holding then he can do lump-sum but if is the one who invest in different peiode of time like whenever he/she has spare money to invest in bitcoin this can be consider as DCA and these different periods timeframe depends on that person like he/she gets sally on weekly basis or monthly basis, it vary condition to condition. CMIIW!

Of course, anyone who has already gotten accustomed to buying bitcoin can try to figure out what strategies that he would like to employ, and surely if a person is brand new to investing in bitcoin, they have absolutely no bitcoin, so the ONLY way to prepare for UP is to actually buy some bitcoin, and it seems that DCA is a very good way to get some initial exposure.

It also could be the case that some newbies to bitcoin have options other than merely DCA, even though surely many folks do not have a bunch of funds in order to give them options, so any person who has such funds, they will have options to consider the funds for DCA, lump sum or buying on dips (that might not happen).

A person who had already started DCA may well come across extra funds from time to time, and so if they suddenly find themselves with more funds they have the same options to consider such extra funds for DCA, lump sum or buying dips (that might not happen).

The more bitcoin that a person has accumulated, then likely the more options that they have, yet they might not necessarily be assured to be in profits in shorter timelines, even though there might be good chances for them to be in profits if they had been accumulating more than 4 years... especially if their accumulation had been regular, persistent, consistent, ongoing  and perhaps even aggressive (within their capacities). 

I surely don't recommend any attempts to trade bitcoin and surely not getting involved in shitcoins as you mentioned crypto as if shitcoins might be relevant from your point of view.  Anyone who might not be able to control their gambling tendencies and deciding to get involved in shitcoins and/or trading should at least attempt to limit their exposure to that nonsense to less than 10% of the size of their bitcoin investment (and without cheating since gamblers (ie traders and/or shitcoiners) might have challenges in controlling themselves).

I was talking about this post, as the whole post seems to be merged in a single quote if you look at it more. The reason for this can be that there is no closing quote of the second person mentioned above. I am talking about "cxtreenal" as there is no closing quote tag for this person's post, as he is also mentioned in the same post. Am I right here? CMIIW! And if this is the reason that is causing a kind of confusion while reading that post, then please edit it. Thank you!

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

I was talking about this post, as the whole post seems to be merged in a single quote if you look at it more. The reason for this can be that there is no closing quote of the second person mentioned above. I am talking about "cxtreenal" as there is no closing quote tag for this person's post, as he is also mentioned in the same post. Am I right here? CMIIW! And if this is the reason that is causing a kind of confusion while reading that post, then please edit it. Thank you!

Upon further review, I still don't see any mistake in whatever I did in my post or the post or even what cxtreenal did.

[Hardyrobust]

]

Yes sir I completely agree with you on this. But the needs of a rich person and the needs of a poor person are completely different. A person whose income is very low has decorated his life with very little money. His needs are very small, he does not have such big needs as expensive clothes, big houses etc. But the needs of a rich person or a wealthy person are completely different compared to a poor person. But yes a rich person's portfolio will be much bigger if he is able to reach his goal. But if a poor person is able to reach his goal then he will be able to create a much bigger portfolio from his side.

But compared to a rich person's investment, it becomes very difficult for a poor person to reach his goal. Because if he faces any kind of financial disaster, he may not be able to deal with the financial disaster with his funds for a very long time. Many times due to the need for money, he may not invest consistently and may get out of the human nature of investment. Due to financial problems, it becomes much more difficult for a poor person to reach their portfolio goals than for a relatively wealthy person.

The rich folks has the opportunity of reaching there long term goals in bitcoin than the poor folks. The percentage of the discretionary income that the rich folks use in buying bitcoin cannot be compared to what the poor that is still struggling to have discretionary income used. I think the percentage of income that an investor put in bitcoin investment determines how fast they will be able to achieve there long term goals.

[impulse709]

I agree a bit with your worries. But there's a catch with this: As long as the Bitcoin user base is growing, their political power will grow too. It doesn't matter if they are CEX users at first and thus are bound to middlemen. In countries where more than 10% of the population own Bitcoin, it will be virtually impossible trying to ban it (in democracies), because any politician threatening a ban will fear to lose a substantial part of his electorate, because nobody will want to sell their BTC. This is true even more in a world where most democratic countries have fragmented party systems and 10% of the population is really an "asset" many parties will want to capture.

And while the user base increases, there will also be a slow movement towards "true" Bitcoin ownership, i.e. towards holding BTC on your own self-managed wallet with your own keys. Yes it's very slow afaik, but most Bitcoin influencers do talk about these things, so some of the people following them will know about the censorship-resistance concepts, even if most still ignore them.

The beautiful thing is that P2P trading and atomic swaps are techniques extremely difficult to control or block by governments.

So I continue to be optimistic, despite of the current centralization trend.

It's true that the more people use Bitcoin, the more the power of it grows, which the governments will not find it easy to ban it, especially in democracies where votes matter, with the fear that the people might cast their votes for them just as you have highlighted.
Also, with the opportunity that Bitcoin offers people to be in charge of their reserve or funds makes it harder for the government to control, which is why it interests people so much to know more about Bitcoin and use it because of the benefits it offers to them, even though that its a volatile asset,  people are still wanting to be a part of it, which they don't care about the government restrictions on it.

To a great extent, I share this positive attitude. The more people use Bitcoin, the more political and social impact it has as this is particularly true in democratic societies where voters play a vital role in elections. Once a large part of the population engages in ownership of Bitcoin, it becomes very hard to ban it given that politicians will be losing a great part of their voters. Although this may not be the immediate adoption by a large number of users at the beginning, this helps in its further adoption and awareness. As time passes, the word of self-custody, private keys, and censorship-resistant qualities of Bitcoin spreads among people through community education. Bitcoin has volatile characteristics, but it is still resilient due to its decentralization capabilities, such as P2P transactions, and can be viewed as having a positive long-term perspective because of the trends in its current centralization.

[JayJuanGee]

]
Yes sir I completely agree with you on this. But the needs of a rich person and the needs of a poor person are completely different. A person whose income is very low has decorated his life with very little money. His needs are very small, he does not have such big needs as expensive clothes, big houses etc. But the needs of a rich person or a wealthy person are completely different compared to a poor person. But yes a rich person's portfolio will be much bigger if he is able to reach his goal. But if a poor person is able to reach his goal then he will be able to create a much bigger portfolio from his side.

But compared to a rich person's investment, it becomes very difficult for a poor person to reach his goal. Because if he faces any kind of financial disaster, he may not be able to deal with the financial disaster with his funds for a very long time. Many times due to the need for money, he may not invest consistently and may get out of the human nature of investment. Due to financial problems, it becomes much more difficult for a poor person to reach their portfolio goals than for a relatively wealthy person.

The rich folks has the opportunity of reaching there long term goals in bitcoin than the poor folks. The percentage of the discretionary income that the rich folks use in buying bitcoin cannot be compared to what the poor that is still struggling to have discretionary income used. I think the percentage of income that an investor put in bitcoin investment determines how fast they will be able to achieve there long term goals.

You are not wrong about anything that you are saying Hardyrobust.

The rich have advantages over the poor, yet I would still like to push back on any of your implications that getting ahead is futile for the poor... and bitcoin likely provides greater hope for the poor as compared with other options that they might have - including that they are able to both self-custody it and they are also able to buy small amounts at a time (in accordance with their cashflow situation).

So even if the poor might not be able to pass up the rich, they still may well be able to improve their own situations, and surely if they are young enough, they also might be able to pass up the rich - even though they might need to figure out ways to increase their discretionary income, especially the income side of the equation... but yeah, if a poor person might be ONLY earning a few hundred dollars a month, then maybe after several months he might be able to increase his income or even attend some kind of school or training in order to get placement into higher paying positions.. .but yeah, there are also a lot of poor people due to age and/or health circumstances, they might not be able to increase their discretionary income in any meaningful way, so that class of poor person, might have more difficulties to advantage in their situation, even by investing prudently into bitcoin.

So sure, there is some luckiness and even some unluckiness in terms of the circumstances in which guys find themselves... and in that regard, each person has to figure out the extent to which investing in bitcoin might be able to help them, including that so many times, guys here mention that they need to have an investment timeline of 4-10 years or longer, otherwise they are trading/gambling rather than investing, and I surely don't recommend trading/gambling with bitcoin, so it is better that any person getting into bitcoin to be trying to consider themselves as having a 4-10 years or longer investment timeline.

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

You are not wrong about anything that you are saying Hardyrobust.

The rich have advantages over the poor, yet I would still like to push back on any of your implications that getting ahead is futile for the poor... and bitcoin likely provides greater hope for the poor as compared with other options that they might have - including that they are able to both self-custody it and they are also able to buy small amounts at a time (in accordance with their cashflow situation).

So even if the poor might not be able to pass up the rich, they still may well be able to improve their own situations, and surely if they are young enough, they also might be able to pass up the rich - even though they might need to figure out ways to increase their discretionary income, especially the income side of the equation... but yeah, if a poor person might be ONLY earning a few hundred dollars a month, then maybe after several months he might be able to increase his income or even attend some kind of school or training in order to get placement into higher paying positions.. .but yeah, there are also a lot of poor people due to age and/or health circumstances, they might not be able to increase their discretionary income in any meaningful way, so that class of poor person, might have more difficulties to advantage in their situation, even by investing prudently into bitcoin.

So sure, there is some luckiness and even some unluckiness in terms of the circumstances in which guys find themselves... and in that regard, each person has to figure out the extent to which investing in bitcoin might be able to help them, including that so many times, guys here mention that they need to have an investment timeline of 4-10 years or longer, otherwise they are trading/gambling rather than investing, and I surely don't recommend trading/gambling with bitcoin, so it is better that any person getting into bitcoin to be trying to consider themselves as having a 4-10 years or longer investment timeline.

Yes the rich got more advantage since they have more liquidity and constant supply of funds for their discretion but that shouldn't discourage poor people make them feel they're not in a good position to invest in Bitcoin. The thing is that some poor people lack patience and that's were their problem is, they want quick money and can't be patient enough to start small, maintain consistency and grow with time.
 Some poor people even make the mistake of waiting till they get a better job or earn higher income before they start, I consider it a wrong step given that they could miss lots of buying opportunities before they could get the preferred amount they feel they could start with. There's no harm in start small then increase the amount of discretionary they wish to invest with as time goes.

[Abiky]

I feel like we’re losing Bitcoin’s soul—Decentralization and Privacy—just for a higher price tag. Most newcomers don’t care about the tech anymore; they’re just here for the "Number Go Up" gains.
​It’s alarming to see people on X calling privacy advocates "scammers" while cheering for KYC and ETFs. We keep making excuses for these compromises, but isn't this exactly how Bitcoin gets domesticated? We survived years without government validation—why are we so desperate for it now?
​I’m really worried we’re trading freedom for a spot in a Wall Street portfolio. Does anyone else feel like the original ethos is fading?

You are among the small few who actually sees what's going on. The rest are either blinded by greed, or simply don't care about anything. The good-old days where we could buy/sell Bitcoin freely are gone. Especially with KYC and tighter regulations all over the place. Despite Bitcoin's promise to "decentralize" the world, centralized exchanges continue to dominate the market. Not even DEXs (which stand for decentralized exchanges) have made a difference. Now it's even worse with "Wall Street" in play. Banks are also getting involved. They will soon start offering Bitcoin custody services to their customers. Satoshi designed Bitcoin as a response against banks' failures. How are things going to change for the better when we're bringing traditional finance back into the system?

In the next decade, Bitcoin will become more valuable than what it is right now. But it will be less-decentralized than before. The core Blockchain network remaining decentralized would be nothing if big entities hold most of the circulating supply. You won't be able to buy/sell BTC without getting KYC'd. DEXs and P2P trading platforms will have so little liquidity, that it won't be worth trading on them. Many things can happen within 10 years, so better be prepared for the worst just in case.

[Ambatman]

Satoshi designed Bitcoin as a response against banks' failures. How are things going to change for the better when we're bringing traditional finance back into the system?

This shows that despite how impressive intent behind creating of a project is
How it's used tend to overshadow why it was created.
Example Bubble wraps.

Bitcoin will become more valuable than what it is right now. But it will be less-decentralized than before.

Now this is a double edged sword and also one of the reasons I created this thread
Why would it be valuable when it's usage would be similar to digital Fiat?
I understand the digital gold narrative they are pushing but that's just a single aspect of Bitcoin.

[Proty]

I feel like we’re losing Bitcoin’s soul—Decentralization and Privacy—just for a higher price tag. Most newcomers don’t care about the tech anymore; they’re just here for the "Number Go Up" gains.
​It’s alarming to see people on X calling privacy advocates "scammers" while cheering for KYC and ETFs. We keep making excuses for these compromises, but isn't this exactly how Bitcoin gets domesticated? We survived years without government validation—why are we so desperate for it now?
​I’m really worried we’re trading freedom for a spot in a Wall Street portfolio. Does anyone else feel like the original ethos is fading?

You are among the small few who actually sees what's going on. The rest are either blinded by greed, or simply don't care about anything. The good-old days where we could buy/sell Bitcoin freely are gone. Especially with KYC and tighter regulations all over the place. Despite Bitcoin's promise to "decentralize" the world, centralized exchanges continue to dominate the market. Not even DEXs (which stand for decentralized exchanges) have made a difference. Now it's even worse with "Wall Street" in play. Banks are also getting involved. They will soon start offering Bitcoin custody services to their customers. Satoshi designed Bitcoin as a response against banks' failures. How are things going to change for the better when we're bringing traditional finance back into the system?

In the next decade, Bitcoin will become more valuable than what it is right now. But it will be less-decentralized than before. The core Blockchain network remaining decentralized would be nothing if big entities hold most of the circulating supply. You won't be able to buy/sell BTC without getting KYC'd. DEXs and P2P trading platforms will have so little liquidity, that it won't be worth trading on them. Many things can happen within 10 years, so better be prepared for the worst just in case.

Even if institutions should get involved or holding most of the big supply, I think this won't change the decentralised nature of bitcoin. Bitcoin offer freedom that not even traditional finance will be able to replace.There are three things I think will definitely grow if institutions should get involved, like liquidity, price and adoption.so it doesn't change a thing if some people choose kyc part

[Hanadawa]

Bitcoin will become more valuable than what it is right now. But it will be less-decentralized than before.

Now this is a double edged sword and also one of the reasons I created this thread
Why would it be valuable when it's usage would be similar to digital Fiat?
I understand the digital gold narrative they are pushing but that's just a single aspect of Bitcoin.

I think what differentiates Bitcoin from digital currencies is its pseudonymous nature. This means that every transaction is visible to anyone, even if the transaction is unknown, unless the wallet address is made public. This means that if Bitcoin were a digital currency, every transaction would be completely transparent because we would know where each wallet is sending Bitcoin. However, that doesn't fully answer your question about why Bitcoin will continue to be valuable in the future. What I do know, besides the digital gold narrative, is that Bitcoin's blockchain technology is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is considered to have continued value in the future.

[passwordnow]

Even if institutions should get involved or holding most of the big supply, I think this won't change the decentralised nature of bitcoin.

The nature of Bitcoin as a decentralized crypto will never change but the economy of it that involves us, the retailers and the financial institutions, that's what will change. Because they'll have more power to the economy of it and a little bit of influence to its market.

Bitcoin offer freedom that not even traditional finance will be able to replace.There are three things I think will definitely grow if institutions should get involved, like liquidity, price and adoption.so it doesn't change a thing if some people choose kyc part

The kyc part is part of the adoption that we cannot stop. If we're going to exchange our Bitcoins into fiat, we have to go through that process unless you still have some ways of exchanging it without having to go through a kyc process but, we just have to accept that thing.

[PhilosopherKing]

You are not wrong about anything that you are saying Hardyrobust.

The rich have advantages over the poor, yet I would still like to push back on any of your implications that getting ahead is futile for the poor... and bitcoin likely provides greater hope for the poor as compared with other options that they might have - including that they are able to both self-custody it and they are also able to buy small amounts at a time (in accordance with their cashflow situation).

So even if the poor might not be able to pass up the rich, they still may well be able to improve their own situations, and surely if they are young enough, they also might be able to pass up the rich - even though they might need to figure out ways to increase their discretionary income, especially the income side of the equation... but yeah, if a poor person might be ONLY earning a few hundred dollars a month, then maybe after several months he might be able to increase his income or even attend some kind of school or training in order to get placement into higher paying positions.. .but yeah, there are also a lot of poor people due to age and/or health circumstances, they might not be able to increase their discretionary income in any meaningful way, so that class of poor person, might have more difficulties to advantage in their situation, even by investing prudently into bitcoin.

So sure, there is some luckiness and even some unluckiness in terms of the circumstances in which guys find themselves... and in that regard, each person has to figure out the extent to which investing in bitcoin might be able to help them, including that so many times, guys here mention that they need to have an investment timeline of 4-10 years or longer, otherwise they are trading/gambling rather than investing, and I surely don't recommend trading/gambling with bitcoin, so it is better that any person getting into bitcoin to be trying to consider themselves as having a 4-10 years or longer investment timeline.

Yes the rich got more advantage since they have more liquidity and constant supply of funds for their discretion but that shouldn't discourage poor people make them feel they're not in a good position to invest in Bitcoin. The thing is that some poor people lack patience and that's were their problem is, they want quick money and can't be patient enough to start small, maintain consistency and grow with time.
 Some poor people even make the mistake of waiting till they get a better job or earn higher income before they start, I consider it a wrong step given that they could miss lots of buying opportunities before they could get the preferred amount they feel they could start with. There's no harm in start small then increase the amount of discretionary they wish to invest with as time goes.

Even if the rich may have more advantage, the poor too have the opportunity to buy bitcoin if discretionary income is there.

A no coiner do not have to self sabotage their selves by waiting to have a perfection in their cashflow before invest in bitcoin. Progress in bitcoin is built step by step, so therefore people can start bitcoin with what they have even though it is small and scale up if income improve later.

To wait for perfection is shitty and can keep people broke forever

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

Even if the rich may have more advantage, the poor too have the opportunity to buy bitcoin if discretionary income is there.

A no coiner do not have to self sabotage their selves by waiting to have a perfection in their cashflow before invest in bitcoin. Progress in bitcoin is built step by step, so therefore people can start bitcoin with what they have even though it is small and scale up if income improve later.

To wait for perfection is shitty and can keep people broke forever

That's where the DCA comes in, the rich might have steady inflow of cash supply which put them in a better position for investment but woth the DCA the poor isn't left out. One thing most poor people don't realise is that every investors discretionary can never be same since and regardless of the class anyone find themselves there's still hope of investing with DCA.
 It's for everybody and poor people don't need to wait for their inflow to be perfect, life itself has different phases but with the DCA which requires consistency, poor people can start with the little they can, be consistent with it and get the opportunity of moving from a poor state to being wealthy in the future if only they can be patience, that's to let you know that patience is very important in Bitcoin investment, especially for the poor.

[Joeboy]

Bitcoin will become more valuable than what it is right now. But it will be less-decentralized than before.

Now this is a double edged sword and also one of the reasons I created this thread
Why would it be valuable when it's usage would be similar to digital Fiat?
I understand the digital gold narrative they are pushing but that's just a single aspect of Bitcoin.

I think what differentiates Bitcoin from digital currencies is its pseudonymous nature. This means that every transaction is visible to anyone, even if the transaction is unknown, unless the wallet address is made public. This means that if Bitcoin were a digital currency, every transaction would be completely transparent because we would know where each wallet is sending Bitcoin. However, that doesn't fully answer your question about why Bitcoin will continue to be valuable in the future. What I do know, besides the digital gold narrative, is that Bitcoin's blockchain technology is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is considered to have continued value in the future.

That's right, to an extent, the Bitcoin blockchain technology explains Bitcoin's long term value....But that alone doesn't tell the whole story. This is coz most project out there also make use of the blockchain technology, but yet still end up failing due to one reason or the other. But this isn't the case with the Bitcoin...That why I think that there are so many factors that gives Bitcoin that continued long term value, some of which are its fixed supply, decentralization, strong level of security, history of thriving through various market cycles and whatnot..

[Alone055]

Even if the rich may have more advantage, the poor too have the opportunity to buy bitcoin if discretionary income is there.

A no coiner do not have to self sabotage their selves by waiting to have a perfection in their cashflow before invest in bitcoin. Progress in bitcoin is built step by step, so therefore people can start bitcoin with what they have even though it is small and scale up if income improve later.

To wait for perfection is shitty and can keep people broke forever

Well, there is nothing wrong with someone buying $50 worth of Bitcoin a month and keep that for the long-term, but they should make sure that they understand that even if Bitcoin goes to $500k in the future, that $50 will only turn into $500, which means that their investments will surely bring them some yield, but one shouldn't have unrealistic expectations from their Bitcoin investments, like they are going to get rich from these investments, and their life is going to change, because that boat has been missed by most of us because we didn't buy when the price was very low, most of us didn't even know about it or didn't have enough resources to do so, but anyway.

I can't help but agree with those saying that Bitcoin is more of a tool for the rich to reach their long-term goals than it is for the poor to do something for their future, and I'm not saying this to discourage anyone, everyone should invest as much as they can, but I'm just saying that one shouldn't expect the unimaginable and then get hurt, or have no other plans because they think everything will be managed through this.

[Umulala-alala]

]

Yes sir I completely agree with you on this. But the needs of a rich person and the needs of a poor person are completely different. A person whose income is very low has decorated his life with very little money. His needs are very small, he does not have such big needs as expensive clothes, big houses etc. But the needs of a rich person or a wealthy person are completely different compared to a poor person. But yes a rich person's portfolio will be much bigger if he is able to reach his goal. But if a poor person is able to reach his goal then he will be able to create a much bigger portfolio from his side.

But compared to a rich person's investment, it becomes very difficult for a poor person to reach his goal. Because if he faces any kind of financial disaster, he may not be able to deal with the financial disaster with his funds for a very long time. Many times due to the need for money, he may not invest consistently and may get out of the human nature of investment. Due to financial problems, it becomes much more difficult for a poor person to reach their portfolio goals than for a relatively wealthy person.

The rich folks has the opportunity of reaching there long term goals in bitcoin than the poor folks. The percentage of the discretionary income that the rich folks use in buying bitcoin cannot be compared to what the poor that is still struggling to have discretionary income used. I think the percentage of income that an investor put in bitcoin investment determines how fast they will be able to achieve there long term goals.

For sure you can't compare the discretionary income of a rich folks and that of the poor folks because they don't operate on the same level of cash flow, but there is an opportunity for the poor folks to be rich in the future if they can be buying BTC and hodl.
If a poor person is consistent and persistently buying bitcoin regularly using the dca strategy and hodl for a long time he will surely get to his accumulation stage one day, so the important thing is buying bitcoin and buying it with your discretionary income no matter how small your discretionary income is with consistency will definitely get to their accumulation goal or have a good amount of bitcoin portfolio.

[DeeppRockk]

]

Yes sir I completely agree with you on this. But the needs of a rich person and the needs of a poor person are completely different. A person whose income is very low has decorated his life with very little money. His needs are very small, he does not have such big needs as expensive clothes, big houses etc. But the needs of a rich person or a wealthy person are completely different compared to a poor person. But yes a rich person's portfolio will be much bigger if he is able to reach his goal. But if a poor person is able to reach his goal then he will be able to create a much bigger portfolio from his side.

But compared to a rich person's investment, it becomes very difficult for a poor person to reach his goal. Because if he faces any kind of financial disaster, he may not be able to deal with the financial disaster with his funds for a very long time. Many times due to the need for money, he may not invest consistently and may get out of the human nature of investment. Due to financial problems, it becomes much more difficult for a poor person to reach their portfolio goals than for a relatively wealthy person.

The rich folks has the opportunity of reaching there long term goals in bitcoin than the poor folks. The percentage of the discretionary income that the rich folks use in buying bitcoin cannot be compared to what the poor that is still struggling to have discretionary income used. I think the percentage of income that an investor put in bitcoin investment determines how fast they will be able to achieve there long term goals.

For sure you can't compare the discretionary income of a rich folks and that of the poor folks because they don't operate on the same level of cash flow, but there is an opportunity for the poor folks to be rich in the future if they can be buying BTC and hodl.
If a poor person is consistent and persistently buying bitcoin regularly using the dca strategy and hodl for a long time he will surely get to his accumulation stage one day, so the important thing is buying bitcoin and buying it with your discretionary income no matter how small your discretionary income is with consistency will definitely get to their accumulation goal or have a good amount of bitcoin portfolio.

You're right that DCA makes investing accessible, and thats awesome for people starting out. But I totally get how the opportunity cost feels brutal when you're living paycheck to paycheck - every spare dollar needs to cover essentials, not just *hope* for future gains. Even small, regular contributions can compound powerfully over decades, it's true, but that initial outlay stings when rent is due tomorrow.

Remember how brutal the 2018 correction was?