Per your request (@Pi-network314159) I am positing my response here.
Since the thread in which I was posting/responding was locked, I am going to post my response here, in this lovely thread, and I will also invite Pi-network314159 to look at my response in this thread and decide whether he is going to respond further.
it's my pleasure and honour being invited here, but after this reply I would like the conversation to continue
in this post.
I agree that the general idea of applying DCA to BTC accumulation would be to attempt to both invest in bitcoin on a regular basis and to customize your style/approach to your own financial circumstances and/or budget.
that is correct, because to get acostomed to DCA one needs to invest on a regular basis. and that is basically the secret of getting a better style or approach, but the fact still remain that no matter how we get better style , sometimes investment strategy changes expecially when there is no steady income generation. may be when salary job is terminated, it will definitely affect the DCA strategy making it a little bit slower than expected or any other unforseen circumstances.
I would expect that if we are investing rather than gambling, then we would be mostly sticking within our disposable income, absent if we have some other assets or reserve funds that we would want to transfer or reallocate into bitcoin.
So yeah if you income dries up or your expenses go higher than your income, then by definition you would have no more disposable income, so you would ONLY be able to continue to invest into BTC if you happen to have some reserve funds.. and not necessarily emergency funds unless you were to know that your loss of income were only very temporary so that you would be able to replace your emergency funds in a relatively prompt timeline.
but definitely there is always a way out maybe pausing the investment or reducing the investment plan by rearranging the statistical data analysis which have been programmed on DCA.
Of course, the better that anyone is able to manage their finances and to have various sources of funds, then the more options he is going to have, yet there would still be some restrictions that may well fall under basic rules in which the income should be higher than the expenses.. so yeah sometimes there can be temporary circumstances that might call for temporary adjustments, but if a person is sloppy in terms of his finances he might end up devolving into gambling rather than investing and he might still call it investing even though it is gambling... so yeah, how responsible or irresponsible a person is can end up affecting results.. or affecting options that are available.
I also see that the best way to achieve this DCA strategy is to have a Private/self employed business, because that is the only way we can achieve our table lay down.
You are merely referring to a kind of source of income that may or may not be a good idea. It is not obvious that private/self employment is either better than working for someone else or finding ways to increase income by working for someone else.
I am not opposed to the idea, but sometimes there can be some businesses that are capital intensive and others that are labor intensive, and so there might also be a lot of variance based on skill sets that a person has, and so the answers are not obvious, even if the ideas of increasing cashflow or even cutting expenses could be ways to increase disposable income and increasing income might be more practical than cutting expenses, yet even that is not going to be clear just from abstractly thinking about it.. because there is going to be personal variance.
So within any DCA approach, you can choose the extent to which you want to be aggressive or whimpy, and whether you are aggressive or whimpy, you should still be able to manage other aspects of your budgeting which would be making sure that your expenses are below your income and/or managing your emergency funds, reserve funds and/or float. The mere fact that you are aggressive does not mean that you would necessarily end up being sloppy in gterms of managing various aspects of your budget.
for me being aggressive should be focused on when you have a higher paying job and being Wimpy when you have no job to back you up in the journey.
You might not be wrong, but I think that I am using the ideas of whimpy and aggressively a bit differently from you.
Sure you might have a high paying job that gives you a lot of disposable income or you might have a low paying job that does not give you a lot of disposable income, yet we could compare two kinds of people who might fit in the same level of income and one might choose to allocate a higher percentage of his disposable income to bitcoin and so that would be the aggressive one, and the other may decide to allocate a low level of his income to bitcoin and that guy would be the whimpy one.. at least under my ways of trying to use those terms.
I believe someone who has a higher earning with aggressive investment can DCA big fund weekly, and take care of his other responsibilities and have a better emergency fund except the person is a careless or an extravagant spender otherwise there is no point of have a bigger fund and yet lack a better strategic plan.
Sure some people are sloppy than others in terms of their organizational skills and their staying within a budget, and so a sloppy person will be less able to afford being aggressive because he does not have his shit together as much as the less sloppy and more organized person.
Some things are more within our control than other things, but we can still try to plan around things that vary every month and things that are consistent and we can sometimes make efforts to increase our income or decrease or expenses.. .. and sometimes the solution might not be clear because we might consider that if we attend a 8 week training course for some job related skill then we might be able to increase our income 10 weeks later..
although sometimes peop with high earning are always tempted to spend alot I must confess. you know they say when your money is big your responsibility also increase along with your current financial status. it only takes self decipline to control the urge of excessive or extravagant spending.
You are not going to get any disagreement with me on those points.
The tool does not become less valuable merely because I was the one that inputted the data and created the assumptions versus some other person could make better or worse assumptions, so the mere fact that such a tool is available does not assume that it will be used well or that my way of using it is not any good for me, whether I turn out to be correct in my assumptions or not, it could still be helpful to go through such exercises.. but it also might be a big waste of time for some folks who might be served better by using their skills and their thought process in other ways... Another thing is that it may or may not be helpful if the person using the tool is failing/refusing to attempt to match the knowledge and/or theory with putting some variation of the framework into action... When a person puts some of these ideas into practice the ideas may well end up informing the practice and the theory, so the whole process of putting the theory to action can help to better inform any person who is trying to improve himself and/or his circumstances through the use of these kinds of tools.
you are also correct. setting the table by yourself doest to implies that it is not good for you, each individual has a way of doing theirs but definitely the Wimpy ones will alway find a way of criticising the table in other no to follow a rightful part but that doesn't change any fact because it is an individual race and doesn't require any body to like it or not.
Well some people might have other priorities, so we might label them as being whimpy in regards to bitcoin yet they might be aggressive in some other kind of hobby or investment that they have. So if we are talking about bitcoin, we might suggest that they get their priorities straight and to prioritize bitcoin more, yet people are going to see their priorities int eh way that they choose and we may or may not be able to change how much emphasis they decide to give to bitcoin versus other competing interests that they might have going on.
Surely bitcoin is not an obvious place to put your time, energies and value, and part of the evidence for that is because an overwhelming majority of the world's population is underinvested (or not invested at all in bitcoin), and it well could be close to 99% of the world who is not invested or underinvested into bitcoin.
Sure adoption has been increasing, but at the same time, the adoption of bitcoin may be coming more from a smaller number of individuals, institutions and governments who are investing BIG, and the overwhelming rest of the population remains whimpy in their own choices not to invest at all, so even if some of us are whimpy, we are still likely going to be way ahead of the overwhelming majority of folks who are either not invested at all or have even more whimpy levels of investment than us...
so maybe in that sense, whimpiness can be relative in the comparison to others and it can be relative to our own budgets. .and one of the positive aspects of bitcoin seeming to be such a great asymmetric bet to the upside is that even historically whimpy investors into bitcoin have done quite well as long as they errored on the side of buying, not selling and mostly holding, even if they might not have bought a lot.. Of course, if they were whimpy, they could have had been more aggressive in their approach in investing into BTC, but frequently they would not realize that they were too whimpy until much later down the road when bitcoin had ended up doing multitudes, if not magnitudes of price appreciation..
the reason many people put their blame on some unnecessary things is because of there inability to to program a table and follow it subsequently without failing.
The table can point out one potential path; however, at the same time, the person who might have created a table or a variety of tables, may well need to make adjustments along the way that might involve changes in his investment amounts and/or changes in his expectations regarding BTC's price performance or other parts of the economy or even regarding his own abilities to contribute and at what rate.
and when dey do it based on anytime any day or always wanting btc to dip, dey become tired and wanting to call it a quit and also planing to sell of the little generated btc.
Sure people are like that, and sometimes there might be overinvestment that causes those kinds of backing out.. or there can be changes in views about the future of bitcoin.
Sure many of us longer term bitcoiners might already made those mistakes or we might have learned to not do that. We cannot really convince someone to stick with their plan, and sometimes it might be better to abandon the plan rather than sticking with it.