Well, it seems that I had a few variations of how to sell.. and one of them would be to sell 10% for every time that the price doubled, another possibility would be to sell up to 25% for every time the price doubled, and I think a bad variant would be to sell 50% or more since if you sell 50%, you are not getting any compounding effect, even though you are getting out all of the short-term profits, and after several responses, I was getting the sense that Philip may well have had been doing something closer to selling 50% or more rather than more conservative sell amounts, yet even with the more conservative sell amounts, there could be some booster amounts (sales) that might be thrown into the mix.. especially if the BTC holdings had doubled several times, and therefore would have compounded several times.

Another thing with Biodom's response to the matter, he was correctly asserting that selling 1% every 10% rise is going to end up with more sales and more undermining of the BTC portfolio rather than selling 10% every 100%, and I would be more than willing to show another kind of calculation and formulas for cashing out in smaller increments while at the same time buying back at various intervals in order to cause the smaller increments to likely have even less actual depletion of the BTC in the holdings, even though there are ongoing sales of BTC on the way up. 

Anyone want to compare it.. the HypoPhil with various buy backs?

Anyone?

Anyone?


No comment.


If you reconsider what I actually said, from my perspective there likely is a difference between actual evil and "a hyperbolic evil wannabe"


Yeah.. no need to deviate from the 4-year fractal.. absent some kind of justification that is more than just spouting out without backing it up with anything... let alone insufficient to overcome the presumption.


That's a good point.