[edited out].
Basically, converting digital tokens to digital assets can sometimes be considered in the sense that there are
assets that are more valuable than others so you can decide to sell less valuable assets to buy Bitcoin when those assets starts depreciating in value but let it not be assets that are still generating good money for you.
Surely I was not attempting to differentiate between various kinds of digital assets and digital tokens, since I was only referring to bitcoin and otherwise referring to various productive and/or non productive assets and/or currencies.
When you get into talking about various digital assets it sounds to me that you are talking about shitcoins as a way to potentially diversify, and surely I was not talking or even hinting at any of that kind of discussion, since your earlier post did not seem to do that either.
The only digital asset/token that I was referring to was bitcoin... and maybe the dollar might be digital in some cases... but much of what you had initiated your post with was talking about some kinds of physical assets that might be used for generating income, such as equipment... and so there can be assessments about those physical assets and the extent to which they hold their value and how much inputs they might require to generate income.. and then also if they depreciate in value, hold their value or potentially appreciate in value.
I quite understand your point and I apologize if i sounded contradictory but you can agree with me that Bitcoin is also a digital asset and when am talking about digital assets it my post am referring to Bitcoin precisely and I don't mean that anyone who is into Bitcoin should diversify into other projects that are of less value than Bitcoin so if anyone who is a Bitcoin investor ventures into diversifying into something that is of less value when compared with Bitcoin then such person might be considered to be mentally ill.
If you are referring to bitcoin, then why not just say bitcoin instead of using some ambiguous term that might cause someone to consider that you might be referring to something other than bitcoin. Accordingly, bitcoin is not plural, so it seems to be misleading and ambiguous to describe bitcoin as a digital asset rather than just specifically referring to bitcoin.
Using the term digital asset(s) comes off similar as using the term cryptocurrency - and becomes especially more problematic if you do not state what you are referring to.. and there is no reason to use the term digital asset, cryptocurrency or even blockchain if you are specifically referring to bitcoin, and if you are referring to some other crypto currencies, digital assets or shitcoins, then almost always it is better to also make clear which ones you are talking about - or perhaps even to state that maybe you are referring to things other than bitcoin when choosing to use such terms and generally describe something that might be happening that might relate to bitcoin but also might involve some shitcoins, too.
Just like what I said initially about leasing office equipments and I said that such equipments can generate income that can be used to fund one's investment in Bitcoin instead of selling them off so that is just the form of diversification am talking about and not some shit coins or shit projects other than Bitcoin.
Exactly, you were referring to some physical assets and talking about those in the context of considering whether or not to reallocate some of that value into bitcoin or some decisions around allocation choices, so yeah, I did not have any problem with your previous discussion, yet I did have problems with the vagueness and ambiguousness of your referring to digital assets and digital tokens... which you may as well admit that if your intention was to just talk about bitcoin then it would probably have had been better to just use the word bitcoin instead of bringing up those vague and ambiguous terms that may well cause confusion regarding what you are referring to, which it did for me and perhaps for others too. and sure there are some folks who are already used to vague, misleading and ambiguous references, so they might not even notice when you seemingly purposefully chose to do the same... maybe you are trying to sound smart.. but from my perspective (whatever that is worth?) the sues of such vague/ambiguous terms has the opposite effects.
If you check in the area I highlighted, the more valuable assets I was referring to was Bitcoin and not any fucking shitcoins, even if I sound contradictory over there perhaps my explanation here can convince you about the mode of diversification am talking about.
Whether you are apologizing, clarifying or doing some other thing in regards to your earlier word choice, we still seem to be considering that anyone making choices regarding the extent to which they might invest into bitcoin (or reallocate) still may well require a decent amount of analysis that goes into determining value changes of the assets that are being considered, perhaps how much income they generate from the asset, how much capital needs to go into the asset, and how much labor (or other inputs) might have to go into the assets that they are comparing, so we are repeating ourselves in terms of individuals making these kinds of assessments and still maybe in some cases the individual may have good (or better information) and in other cases the individual may be guessing in regards to the extent to which it might be better to stay in one asset versus another and the answers might not end up being obvious regarding expected values of being in one asset versus being in another.