Indeed, in the end it will be a good thing if in the end someone can maintain consistency to make such a large investment and reduce their living needs but in the end the question that will arise is whether it can be done for a long time? Even though being in bitcoin is ultimately a very good thing but in some conditions we also have to think about ourselves and the living needs we have to do because even though I still agree with what you said that a person's standard of living is a personal determination but in other conditions we also cannot make the initial situation as aggressive as it is (by doing at 35 percent for investment in the condition of our monthly income which is only $120 according to the context of the initial example) because indeed for the worst possibility we will not be able to survive for a long time with the situation that will occur in the future where the economic level and needs are increasing.
It is important in the end that instead of forcing 35 percent from the start, it will be more worth it to do it in conditions that we can minimize like 20 percent or 25 percent, which is still quite worth it with an income of $120 per month.
It sounds way more ridiculous to me for someone with such low income to be even capable of reasonably put 35% of his income into bitcoin, unless he is living with his parents or has little to no expenses.
It makes more sense to me that perhaps someone who has $2k per month income and $500 to $1k per month of expenses, might be able to invest 35% of his income into bitcoin... .. but hey I just get bothered by using examples of incomes that are so low (especially if we are referring to aggressive BTC investment of levels higher than 25% of the income, even though I know that some of the guys participating in this thread do happen to have incomes that are only a few hundred per month... and so yeah, they still may be able to figure out ways to invest higher percentages of their income into bitcoin, but at the same time, I am thinking that something is strange that they are able to keep their expenses so low (and yeah, probably they are sharing expenses with family or something like that).
That's why I'm a little bit against it because in the end it's an overly aggressive and even extreme way to go about it as
but I guess my writing wasn't very clear to you so it gave a slightly different response.
In the end when the income is bigger it is indeed not a problem to invest a larger amount or 35% of the total income we have if indeed the salary we get is large (for example around 2k) which you said earlier because it can still be minimized considering the needs we have and some other things such as unexpected needs and still set aside for reserve funds are still there but when the total income is only around $120 and invested at 35% ($40) then indeed this is an action that is actually quite difficult to explain because it is the same as pushing yourself too much. So it would be better to do a little smaller like 20% or smaller than that so that we are not too burdened because the investment is done not just once but it does take time even longer than that so don't push too hard from the start so that we don't get tortured.