Re discussions of selling, then "enjoying new lifestyle".
Everybody's situation is different.
I am in a urban environment with huge RE taxes.
I can survive on, say, 70K a year, but anything less than 100K a year would be a strain, really, with 150K being OK to good (with a couple vacations/year), anything more than that could be used for whatever (investments, etc).
Based on this, $1mil is not really a change in style as you don't really want it to be gone in 7 years, right?
People keep talking about passive income. I have no idea what it means as with current bond yields passive income is something approaching zero.
If you are talking about stock appreciation OR sale of your assets, than it is not a passive income.
I would imagine that in SanFran or NY anything less than 200-250K/year in income is a strain.
Conclusion: I cannot really count on btc being my only money supply until it reaches much, much higher levels, which probably means that I have to work...and work.
I know that you and I disagree with what constitutes passive income, but if you believe that the standard of living that you have grown accustom requires a $150k income, then of course, $4million valuation in your BTC portfolio would be the bare minimum for that.
So I would suggest that currently our 200 week moving average of $6,650 would require 601.5BTC in order to reach that $4 million minimum goal. Of course, either the 200 week moving average could move up in order to cause the minimum required amount of BTC to move down or you could accumulate more BTC in order to reach the goal, and even with those numbers, if the 200 week moving average were to move up 8x in the next 4-6 years like it did in the past 3 years, then you would ONLY need around 75 BTC in order to accomplish the $4million minimum principle valuation.
Of course, if you have other liquid assets other than BTC, then those would also offset your minimum BTC requirement numbers. Without knowing your particular circumstances, even achieving a $4million wealth accumulation goal (based on the 200 week moving average) seems potentially achievable, especially with an asset like BTC, and of course, if there is no way in hell that you are going to be able to accumulate 75 BTC, then you may well need a longer time horizon, and even 10 BTC may well be able to achieve such a goal if we are looking at 10 years to 15 years from now.
P.S. and OT: Dan Morehead (whom I respect as btc investment visionary) thinks that defi will do 100X before btc will do 100X. I have to idea how he came up with this (maybe simply going from lower base).
Unfortunately, it is completely unclear who the main player(s) would be and/or how many (or if it would even work). I took a look and some of those tokens are up 30-100X in the last 6-9 mo.
Entering now without a clue of how it shakes out is kind of idiotic, so a pass for me. Should have thrown a thou on some a few mo ago...oh, well.
Seems way the fuck too risky to me and complicated with a lot of possible areas of failure, exit scams through software and intentionally and even ethereum failures. How much would any of us dare to put into that convoluted knowingly ponzi scheme bullshit to the extent that it is even worth considering in a thread like this? It's like we know it is a ponzi scheme, but we think that we can get in and out based on some kind of superior knowledge of getting in earlier than other greater fools? Does not seem like a great investment thesis to me, even though concededly it is going to contribute to some snot-nosed 14-year olds getting rich faster than more prudent and practical investors.