To me, I think the essence of all this which I think is best, is don't do more than yourself, invest with what you can do away with for a very long period of time, that's why the DCA accumulating strategy is the best because you will be accumulating Bitcoin through the DCA method either weekly or monthly according to your financial strength, and as long as you have a source of income to be funding the DCA accumulating strategy either weekly or monthly you wouldn't be compelled in tempering with your investment just because of some financial needs.
But if you are doing more than yourself, by investing more money, and part of the money that would have cover up for your well-being, at some point, when having a serious financial needs, and your emergency funds are not enough, you will be force to temper with your investment, before you know it, that will be the beginning of the end for that investment, because that will be how you will be eating it bit by bit till it runs out, so it's very important to invest according to your level or I say it like don't do more than yourself, just cut your coat according to your size when DCAing , then you are good to go.
Everyone needs to tailor his investment accordingly to his financial status and also the amount that would be comfort with, two persons might be earning equal amount and having equal financial stability but would be comfortable with different allocation, Mr A might be okay with an aggressive 25% weekly and Mr B might be okay with 10% weekly despite been at same level with Mr A and this might be due to each of them having different risk tolerance relating to investing in bitcoin or having all their value in only one asset.
You made a very good and interesting point but I want to point out one aspect of your statement that does not quite sit well with me. That is the aspect of using "risk tolerance" as a factor for investment. In the example you gave, it should not be ability to bear risk that should determine what percentage each of them will allocate to Bitcoin, rather it should be dependent on their individual needs. Using risk appetite as basis for determining the amount to allocate to Bitcoin might seem like Bitcoin is all about risk, a way of amplifying the risk of Bitcoin. So, needs is a better factor to consider and for this case, Mr A might have needs that requires up to 50% of his income while Mr B might have needs that requires just 30% of his income. Under these two scenarios, Mr B will have more leverage to allocate higher amount into Bitcoin than Mr A.
Meanwhile, when I said needs, I am referring to basic needs and any other thing of importance that cannot wait. These are the factors that can force an investor to sell his Bitcoin. Besides these needs, the other major consideration should be emergency funds which covers unforeseen circumstances.
Those are mere hypothetical to explain the mental situation of two different persons with equal needs and every other necessities in place. Mr A feels comfortable and okay with an aggressive 25% allocation to bitcoin and that doesn't seem to bother him or give him a sence of over allocation to bitcoin whereas Mr B feels okay with his 10% whimpy investment despite knowing he could allocate more to bitcoin.
I applaud you for playing around with various hypothetical persons and going back and forth to attempt to flesh out various considerations that might come into place depending on where a person is with his finances, yet within this one paragraph you seem to be mixing up ideas and framing them in confusing ways. And, many times, guys are struggling to even consistently hold aside 10% of his income for investing, so it begins to be a bit unrealistic to be describing scenarios that guys have 50% or even 70% of their income available for investing, even though surely there are some people who are able to do that, but they tend to be exceptions rather than common kinds of scenarios... but it is possible, but not very realistic to be describing those kinds of outlier scenarios.. and maybe some of those were pushed more by @Moreno233 rather than by @teamsherry.
First, I would like to review that frequently a person can attempt to make a ballpark idea regarding how much of his income he is going to put into bitcoin, so maybe aiming for somewhere between 5% and 25% of his total income; however, he should not be able to come up with his exact target amount if he does not have some kind of an assessment of what his discretionary income is, so if his income and his expenses are almost the same, then he does not have any discretionary income, so he should not be investing into anything until he figures out how he can either increase his income and/or how to decrease his expenses so that he has a discretionary amount that he would be able to invest into bitcoin.
Of course, people with higher incomes have more abilities to actually make sure that they have some discretionary income, and sometimes folks with lower income have very few abilities to either increase their income or to cut their expenses because they are already living in such a way that they have little to no cushion... so those people cannot choose to invest into bitcoin or anything else until they figure out a way to increase or even create a situation in which they have discretionary income.
Second, I doubt that the concepts of whimpy versus aggressive have to do with how much you choose to invest, but instead they are choices about how much of your discretionary income that you invest. So if you already figure out that on a monthly basis you have $2k coming in every month and you have $1,600 in expenses, so then you have figured out that you have $400 of discretionary income that you may well be able to invest into bitcoin, and so maybe the whimpy investor might invest $10 per week into bitcoin and the aggressive investor might invest $100 per week.. but of course, there are levels in between in terms of how much this person could choose to invest, and they might even choose to play it by ear, and some weeks they invest the least amount of $10 (by their own choice) and other weeks they choose to invest the maximum, but most of the weeks they choose to invest somewhere in the middle $50-$70, and so the higher that they are investing within their discretionary income, then the more aggressive that they are being, and if they have figured out all of their calculations correctly, then they would not be classified as overly aggressive, unless they were investing more than $100 per week and then putting themselves in a situation in which they are going above their discretionary income and therefore gambling and/or being reckless in terms of possibly putting themselves in a position that they might need some of the money that they had invested into bitcoin for their monthly expenses.
Thank you sir, for breaking it down to the lowest understanding, because this is the exact situation I found myself in late last year that I started buying Bitcoin true the dca accumulating method, during that period due to how excited I was as a newbie not having much knowledge of Bitcoin and how it works, I was in the opinion that the more Bitcoin in my possession, the more money I will make, not even knowing that holding is another thing all together, so that spur me to invest more than I can afford from my monthly salary, which wasn't that easy for me, because toward the end of the month when I can no longer fend for my basic needs, I will just have to fall back to my holding, and withdraw a fraction of my holding just to survive till I have been paid my monthly salary, and of a truth, that actions I took limited me so much.
So with time, I started gaining knowledge from this forum about Bitcoin and how to go about it, so the moment I stop buying aggressively, and I started buying according to what I can afford, and the money for my monthly upkeep being kept aside, I observe that I no longer struggled to consolidate to my holding as before, so that's why I believe that if an investor can invest according to money he can do away without, holding wouldn't be that difficult, as long as his source of income never runs dry.