[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.
What i see there is just that cryptoprincess101 seems to mixing words up and their terms of words appear contradictory but with the explanation being given he/she is trying to discuss bitcoin but not putting words in clear terms that is just what I see there. I have come across people using ambiguous terms when trying to make description on a particular thing that they are trying to emphasize on.
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.
Your explanation here is understandable even to a layman because when talking about digital assets, there are various form of digital assets of which most of them are in physical form and have no value when compared to Bitcoin so introducing the idea of diversification into some digital assets sounds more like putting ones investment on shitcoins/projects which will be a very wrong move for any investor dealing on Bitcoin so all I see is just wrongly use of words by Cryptoprincess 101 so I believe they have been able to understand that rather than using digital assets to describe bitcoin, coming up plane would have been the better way.