The time has already come for those who have largely been accumulating and holding bitcoin to have had greatly outperformed the no coiners and low coiners. Bitcoin has been outperforming every other investment asset and/or currency over the past 13 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that bitcoin's outperformance of various traditional assets/currencies is not going to continue.

It is like the expression:  "we are going to win."  That expression is incorrect in its temporal assertion, since we are already winning and we have been winning, and so the longer that any of us has been concentrating on bitcoin and mostly accumulating bitcoin (whether DCA or other strategies of lump sum buying and/or buying the dip), the more the BTC accumulator/HODLers have been winning and likely going to continue to win. 

Of course, there are no guarantees that bitcoin will continue to win for the accumulators and hodlers, since past performance does not guarantee future results, even though past performance up until this particular point already has shown and established bitcoin as performing better than any other asset/currency, especially if we are considering timelines of 4-10 years or longer. 

We can also consider bitcoin as broadly and widely available to everyone and anyone, even though surely with any investment there is a need to have an ability to invest in terms of having a disposable income, yet at the same time, no one has been excluded from owning bitcoin - even though surely there are some potential technological barriers in terms of having some kind of access to the internet, yet still being able to invest in bitcoin has been fairly available across the world, even though geographical locations could cause some challenges for some folks to actually buy bitcoin from certain remote locations and if some technology might not be available.. yet I am not sure if there are ways to resolve those kinds of matters in regards to how available an investment is.. such as bitcoin.. There are some advantages that come from learning about something in order to be able to participate in it.


I am having trouble understanding which investments might be better than bitcoin, especially if we are talking longer term, such as 4-10 years or longer.


Some people might need to invest into something to help them to generate an income, so sometimes business men might need to roll over profits from their business into keeping building and expanding the business, which might be the best for their own situation in terms of being able to earn an income, since something like bitcoin requires a disposable income otherwise the advantages of investing 4-10 years or more could not be realized.


That is fair enough.  There are some folks who might already be investing and/or saving, and for them, bitcoin can supplement what they are already doing to potentially complement what they are already doing, yet like you suggested, they need to have some level of discretionary income first, and I would suggest that they need a 4-10 year or longer timeline to invest into bitcoin if they want to come into bitcoin as an investment rather than merely attempting to trade it.


You might be correct that the odds for bitcoin performing well is fairly high, such as 80%, yet I have some difficulties in terms of placing any kind of exact value on it, except maybe that it seems to be greater than 50/50, so that justifies investing into it.  The most that you can lose is 100%, yet there are a lot of upside scenarios within various timelines, so even if our investment timeline might be 4-10 years or greater, than maybe we might suggest that there are pretty good chances that we will be profitable within such timeline, both in terms of the dollar (fiat) value of bitcoin, yet it will also account for the debasement of the currency, so the odds are greater than 50/50 that we would be in a better place to have had invested into bitcoin as compared with not investing into bitcoin.  In order to have an investment thesis, I am not sure if you need more than that, even though sure, you might be right that a number greater than 50% (even approaching 80%) could be reasonably asserted.

For example, when I got into bitcoin in late 2013, I was hoping that I would at least be able to achieve a nominal return of at least 6% per year (which was similar to my then historical average over the previous 20-ish years.  Yet at the same time, I did not have any kind of an exact timeline that I was considering staying in bitcoin, and I also appreciated that there were scenarios in which I might not achieve my wish, so I was ready, willing and able to lose 100% of what I was putting into the investment.  So, personally, it seems to me that the reason that I invested into bitcoin was that I was thinking that the odds over a longer period of time (not specified at that time) would be that I would have greater than 50/50 chances to have better returns by putting value into bitcoin as compared with putting the value into the traditional investments that were then available to me (the ones that I had historically been investing into that tended to average around 6% per year over the previous 20 years-ish). 

It seems to me that if I had assigned 80% odds of such returns, then I might have had been more irresponsible in the way that I invested into bitcoin. Actually, I did not exactly figure out my bitcoin allocation target until I had already been in bitcoin for about a year (by about late 2014), so then I established that my target was going to be 10% of my quasi-liquid portfolio into bitcoin.. and so yeah, I ended up overallocating by the time I was in bitcoin for nearly 2 years I was up to about a 13.5% allocation into bitcoin... so I am not sure if my behaviors reflected that I had thoughts of more than 50/50 odds that bitcoin would outperform my other investments.


It can be difficult to try to articulate why the strength of bitcoin's investment thesis goes beyond just the pump and dump attributes of various shitcoins, and not merely because bitcoin was first, yet likely that if any kind of project (or coin) were to actually overcome bitcoin's protocol layer lead, then it would have to both improve upon bitcoin, but also would likely need to be at least 10x better than bitcoin in order to take over its network effects and to become the leader.  So far, there has been no other coin or project that has come close to either just matching bitcoin or showing itself to be 10x better than bitcoin in order to actually take bitcoin out of its protocol layer leadership position.