Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on January 27, 2024, 09:05:35 PM

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 03:33:06 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on January 27, 2024, 01:09:20 AM

So maybe you could imagine a more whimpy investor (#1) who might have bought at various scattered times, between 2013 and present and maybe he acquired around 40 BTC for an average cost of $600 per BTC (total invested $24k invested), so he is doing quite well in terms of average cost per BTC. (portfolio valued at $1.7 million)

as compared with a second more aggressive investor (#2) who might have gotten in at the same time, made more mistakes, accumulated 80 BTC, but his average cost per BTC is around $2.4k per BTC... ($192k invested). It should be obvious that most of us would still rather be the second investor rather than the first one, even though his average cost per BTC is 4x higher than the first. (portfolio valued at $3.4 million)

As a comment:

Yes, wimpy investor #1 has less btc, but he/she also spent $166K less.
Let's assume for a second that the wimpy investor spent all 166K on NVDA on jan 1, 2014 (10 years ago).
That investor would now have (610/3.92)X166K=$25831633 in that investment and can buy 618 additional btc right now (618>>40 extra).
IF the same for AAPL, then 39.55 btc, which is essentially the same; 44.5 extra BTC "equivalent" for MSFT during the same time, beating "aggressive" by 5-10% (depending on how to count-the whole stash or only extra over 40).

What I am getting at: there were many choices (i just gave the three obvious ones) that would have given you the same btc-equivalent for a wimpy, but smart investor #1.
Of course, you needed to have taken a right choice of investment to get there.

in
<snip>

"in"? A strange remainder...how it got there? Wink

Usually my dangles come at the end, rather than in the beginning.

I will have to make a mental note.

No more "in"s in the beginning.,.. even if I am starting out by saying "in the beginning," I should figure out another way to say it.

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

On a more 'serious' note.

The universe inflated in a fraction of a second, then expanded more slowly.
Bitcoin had a hot inflation phase until maybe 2017.
Now, it is in a slowly expanding phase.

You frequently come up with various theories in regards to "how can I stay as whimpy as possible," which is likely one of the reasons that you only have 20 coins and continue to fail/refuse to recognize and appreciate bitcoin's ongoingly immature status.

Maybe you keep trying to recognize dee cornz as grown up, while failing/refusing to recognize that we are still in early days?

Yeah, sure there are limits in terms of how much bitcoin can grow, so those earliest days were the most explosive because they were starting from zero, so sure maybe we still have tapering of the explosive possibilities, yet there is more money and participants coming into bitcoin at the same time.

I heard the same dumbass assertions about bitcoin at various points in the last 10-ish years, which yeah, maybe people are not directly saying it, but they are presuming a kind of maturity and forgetting about exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles... the TA dweebs have the same problems and the ones who are trying to focus too much on supposed macro relationships also have the same problems (you likely fit in the second camp rather than the first).. many times seeming to be distracted by comparing various stocks and macro trends, etc etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, we are both likely pretty damned conservative in our ways of investing, but you are even more conservative than me based on your seemingly ongoing and persistent distractions into macro factors and thus discounting the paradigm shifting power of bitcoin and the fact that we are still real earliy in terms of the various adopters.. .think about it, sure there are institutions and governments involved in bitcoin and there are even individuals involved, and some of us earlier bitcoin adopters are hoarding and overly accumulating bitcoin (such as Michael Saylor and MSTR, and Saylor is not even that early of an adopter even though he will make it through a whole cycle this year).

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

I am sorry, but drip-dripping at some small $ value per month will not make you rich if you start now, but it would, hopefully, preserve or even enhance your savings among the sea of inflationary fiat systems. That's the ticket.

You are not completely wrong, but people still can ONLY do what they can do. I frequently suggest for people to be as aggressively as they can in their BTC investment without ending up getting themselves reckt, and some people are not going to get into bitcoin unless they DCA into it, so if that means that they ONLY start with $100 per week, then that's their choice... and other people do not have lump sum amounts available, so they ONLY have the choice of DCA.

The more I write this response, the madder you are making me, because I doubt that the ONLY goal is to get rich, but also to stop getting so poor, and if people are already either not saving very much or not used to saving because they know that their cash is losing value, so they are not incentivized to save in cash or to invest into assets that are debased by cash.

So why are you poo-pooing on the guy who invests whatever he can even if it is a small amount on a regular basis, and yeah in 2013/2014, we did not realize that $10 per week would result in $5,330 invested and 4.66 BTC, and part of the reason that I am suggesting $100 per week instead of $10 per week because $10 per week is hardly even anything, but if that is all that a person is able to invest, even now, they are going to need to do what they can.

In 10 years, there are still going to be people coming into bitcoin for the first time, and some of those folks might have already known about bitcoin since today, but they failed/refused to act, but they are still going to benefit from getting into bitcoin rather than not getting into it, even if they might be investing at somewhere between $250k and $500k per BTC, and yeah maybe a good number of them will have to be thinking in terms of buying satoshis rather than planning on getting whole BTC... but the whole society is likely going to be better too, so even those who are not directly benefitting as much by buying bitcoin, they are still going to benefit from the implementation of more fair money.

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

Of course, some oil sheik can drop a couple of bil in bitcoin any time and make a positive disturbance or, conversely, MtGox or US Gov can sell a large chunk and cause the opposite move.

The rich are going to continue to have advantages over the poor, but if you had not realized that one of the advantages of a sly and round about way of transferring wealth is that the less informed are not going to realize that their wealth is being transferred to them, and therefore some of the current status quo poor are going to end up gaining a lot of advantages over the current status quo rich.

Maybe an example is warranted?

Status quo poor begins his investment today with $10 per week, and after 6 months moves to $100 per week and maybe is able to figure out how to get up to $200-$300 per week over the next 10 years, so maybe after 10 years, he invests close to $100k into bitcoin and he is able to accumulate nearly 2 BTC.

If the status quo rich (or at least well to do) refuses to get involved in bitcoin, and maybe only starts to recognize bitcoin after 10 years, then the status quo poor might have gained some ground on him, and surely the status quo poor who invested in bitcoin is going to pass up a lot of the folks who did not get involved in bitcoin, even if 2 bitcoin is not quite yet getting him to western standards of entry-level fuck you status, and maybe the status quo poor guy might have to spend another 5-10 years to accumulate another 0.5 BTC, but he may well end up making it to entry-level fuck you status, even in western standards, and he surely has a much better chance of getting to entry-level fuck you status or even higher by investing into bitcoin rather than not... even if he only ends up getting up to 1 BTC instead of my description of his getting up to 2.5 BTC.. but I was also trying to show an example of a status quo poor person who is consistent, persistent, aggressive and maybe even just maniacally focused on BTC accumulation but also attempting to manage his situation in such a way that he lessens the odds of losing coins, too.

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

I compared a "wimpy" investor choices with an "aggressive" one because both of them have had OTHER possibilities to invest, even among the mainstream investment vehicles.

But we are talking about bitcoin here.. so fuck off with your macro and/or traditional investment distractions. Sure, I am not against them, but they just are not very relevant to this thread... it is almost like you are getting into shitcoinery.. even though surely there can be some placement of those kind of investments into an investment portfolio, especially maybe once one has spent some time accumulating bitcoin (for the sake of diversification and blah blah blah), but really we are talking about bitcoin here so pumping traditional investments seems off topic, a distraction and probably not even advisable.

For example, let's go back to the newbie investor, as you seem to be o.k. with talking about newbies, and suggesting that a newbie is not going to get anywhere by trickling money into bitcoin, and so that is even more true if he fucks around with traditional investments or even dilutes his bitcoin investment by getting distracted into various traditional investments.

There is no reason that the newbie cannot build his bitcoin investment for several years before any diversification would even be necessary or justifiable... and I am not sure exactly what level of income that we might suggest that if the guy might have an income of $2k per month, so sure he is relatively poor in western standards, and maybe he has expenses of $1,400, so he has $600 left over.. and if he chooses to invest $100 per week into bitcoin (that is nearly 20% of his income) and then he can build his emergency fund with the other $200 per month, and he can go like this for several years, and if each year he ends up investing a bit more than $5k after 4-5 years he would have had invested close to 1 years salary/ expenses, and maybe at that point he might decide to start to diversify. I don't see any reason to diversify earlier than that, even though surely guys are going to make these decisions at different points, and maybe some guys (including uie-pooie) think it is necessary to diversify after merely having a few months of expenses/income of an investment portfolio.

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

You cannot just say that someone was wimpy because he/she bought bitcoin once and allocated less because you don't know what else they have done.

Yes I can.

We are talking about whimpy in regards to his investment to bitcoin, and the topic of this thread is about bitcoin, so it is not necessarily derrogatory to say someone took a more whimpy appproach to bitcoin and other took a more aggressive approach to bitcoin, and the rest of what he did happens to be his own choices, but in regards to bitcoin (which is the topic of this thread) he had been either whimpy, aggressive or some state in between.

Why the fuck should we care if he is a whimpy or aggressive investor? That does not matter. We are talking about bitcoin? Aren't you talking about bitcoin? This is not the how to invest your money and get rich thread. This is the what do you think about bitcoin and other topics thread (not shitcoins or trying to pump other products.. including Phil's earlier pumping of Ibonds.. fuck ibonds).

Quote from: Biodom on January 27, 2024, 11:01:48 PM

For the sake of the argument, they might have outperformed the "aggressive" bitcoin investor as i have shown in at least two common stock occasions during the last 10 years (NVDA and MSFT; AAPL was essentially even).

It does not matter. This is NOT the how do you get your best portfolio performance thread... I mean holy fucking shit Biodom, you have been here pumping things other than bitcoin for nearly 10 years and you still have not figured out some ways to try to stay somewhat focused on bitcoin?

You want to do some compare contrast of other things that might have beaten bitcoin? Sure maybe that is somewhat relevant if it is presented in non-pumping and non-distracting way, but doesn't it get us away from our topic, even if you might be all hot and bothered about various other "opportunities" that might exist in the investment world.