Better idea would be to diversify how they are invested and stored.
Security-wise, I gotta agree. If I had a single address with all of my BTC contained inside it - and if it were to be hacked due to some lapse in security, I would have lost all my bitcoins. If I had multiple addresses with a small amount of bitcoins in each and they were all stored separately, then a hack would only affect a small percentage of my total bitcoin wealth.
Even bitcoins held in cold storage can be lost, stolen, destroyed by fire, etc.
Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.
Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?
What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?
I always thought smaller-sized transactions (i.e. transactions from addresses with a small number of outputs) were accepted more quickly by miners and required a smaller fee.