There’s nothing i disagree with here, you rounded everything up nicely.
ultimately any investment practice should be carried out in such a way that it becomes personally owned and not following some suggestions of a somewhat random person on the internet.
I think this one of the best lessons to be teached, and should be counted under having the right principles. To many people wanna outsource their decisions to others, but then loose the ability to make good decisions themselves, when it matters.
I mostly agree that employing leverage that fails to account for extreme scenarios that could happen does seem to rise to the level of gambling rather than investing, so there might not be anything wrong with employing leverage as long as there might be plans to deal with extreme scenarios that could happen (which probably just means not to over-leverage, which might be easier said than done because there likely were some of the leveraged payers who said that they had not been over-leveraged because the BTC price does not tend to go below the 200-week moving average..anyhow, you can see where this is going, no? Maybe if they were playing margin, then an investor might have a plan for if the BTC price goes up and a plan for if the BTC price goes down, they would not ONLY have a plan for one price direction.;.. a gambler might have a plan for only one direction and/or an insufficient hedge for if the opposite happens).
K let’s put it like this, if someone uses leverages they also have to follow the principles traders have, contrary to hodlers who can ignore some things, for example cutting losses, don’t add infinite collateral. Then it’s also about how much leverage was used, a few % of the portfolio, isn’t that risky, if you cut losses. Accepting losses is one of the mindset that needs to be deployed here. I’m not a fan of leverage at all for most people, especially if the whole plan consisted of just one direction, like you said. The 200 wma was a nice indicator, but if the strategy failed they gotta cut, and never make all of your portfolio dependent on leverage.
It seems to me that the difference regarding investing versus gambling for owning part of a company might relate to how much due diligence that you did before making your decision, and maybe even the tolerance of risky versus safe practices within the business can make a difference between if the part ownership of the business would fall into the category of investing versus gambling. For example, you could have everything perfectly set up in the business, but if the business is engaging in some kind of risky practices such as something illegal (even though it does not need to engage in such risky/illegal practices in order to make a profit and to fulfill the various investment targets), then that way of carrying out the business might start to fall more into something more like gambling rather than investing.
You should be able to imagine business versus gambling approaches with the fitting of a car for racing too. there could be ways in which the behavior is reckless and ill though you (which would be more like gambling) and behaviors that are more systematic, and maybe even with long-term thinking that might fit more into a kind of an investing approach to the car.
This can be a lesson for everything in life, we can’t just put everything into boxes, we also gotta check how things are actually done.
I doubt that strong principles make a difference because it ends up most likely relying on luck if the principles are not focused in a kind of productive way that preserves and builds principle/capital rather than consuming it and just not really having any kind of meaningful plan that is a bit more systematic about both building and not losing capital and having plans that accounts for a variety of scenarios (and learning along the way), so the difference between investing versus gambling likely relates to having the right kinds of principles rather than merely having strong principles.
For example, maybe I have strong principles that I am going to party like a wild animal and meet a lot of girls.. so I am going to have a lot of fun and I already know that the girls love me, so I am very popular until I run my whole life (and potential opportunities to build) into the ground.. but the whole time, I had strong principles and a lot of energy and charisma in regards to my philosophy and people liked me because I was confident, popular and full of energy. but I was not really building or engaging in good risk management either.. but I had a lot of fun during that whole time in my 20s and into my early 30s. and maybe even made a lot of money while assuming that the money would keep coming in, so I continued to consume it.. but by the time I reached 35, I had not really developed any skills beyond just having fun, my system of pushing boundaries all of the time strong principles was not working anymore like it used to work back in the good ole days. and my energy levels are not like what they used to be, either. I lived in a lot of nice houses, and I even tried to save for my own house several times, but things came up. I went on a lot of good trips, and some of them even involved some business deals, too. but they did not really pan out. even though I kept busy and I had strong principles the whole time too including that I told everyone that I was going to be rich some day (and people seemed to believe me). but I never really ever stayed focus on building anything . including my own skills beyond being able to party with the best of the.. and bouncing from one deal to the next.
The last part cracked me up ahahhahah, but you hit the nail on the head here. To me strong principles implied having the right principles, a mix of bad principles and stubbornness couldn’t be worse. And maybe there needs to be the right balance too, like everything in life. Enjoy it
and have your shit together, is probably the strongest combination.