Quote from: Felicity_Tide on Today at 11:18:37 AM

Quote from: Zackz5000 on Today at 05:08:14 AM

Quote from: Cryptoprincess101 on Today at 04:39:11 AM

Quote from: Ambatman on December 22, 2024, 01:09:51 PM

Funny how weak hands are selling and institutions are buying
Is like they are not seeing all these as a sign that selling isn't a wise decision.
Never sell in a Loss. Even if Bitcoin falls to $70K or the technical analysis supports it.
Don't sell. ~snip

You called those selling as weak hands, and they will continue to be weak hands because they lack the foresight to see the potentials of bitcoin in the long run, that's why they are selling. About institutions buying more, i don't fucking care about them despite that their activities also influences the market but since we can't tell their next move, am not interested to know how much they are buying.~snip

~snip You can't really call all that is selling now weak hands because there are investor who has been consistently accumulating Bitcoin for a longer period of time probably 10 years back may just decide to sell out little portion of their Bitcoin hodling that doesn't mean they are weak hands because most of has already gotten to their bitcoin accumulation target so I don't see this kind of people selling as a weak hands since they are not selling all their bitcoin hodling.

When using "weak hands", I think Ambatman and Cryptoprincess101 should been more specific with the categories of people they were referring to. You're right, not everyone selling a portion should be called a weak hand, but I can't speak for everyone though. I can speak for myself, because I know what I hold, so using that phrase for myself if I happen to sell at this point (which i won't), makes a complete sense.

The truth is, one way or the another, investors will definitely sell out some portions even if it's a 5-10years plan, as long as time still works. And if you read Ambatman's reply further, he emphasized on never making a mistake to sell at loss. He isn't far from the truth, because people with short term plans and impatient tends to find themselves in this position.

And as for institutions buying, well I don't think they also plan on holding forever as well, but I just hope it doesn't get to the extent of scarcity. As long as Bitcoin still remains very much available, even for a new investor, then there is no problem at all.

I doubt that the question is whether a weak hand is someone selling at a loss, since almost anyone selling supra $90k would be in profits and not in a loss.... .there are folks selling within their first cycle, so their profits might be anywhere between 30% and 8x.. so there can be all kinds of variations in the levels of dollar profits that these sellers are getting.

A person who might be more than a whole cycle in bitcoin, perhaps 6-10 years in bitcoin has more options, and such person may or may not have had reached his accumulation goals, yet a person 6-10 years in bitcoin would likely have BTC costs below $10k per coin, yet even if they made a several mistakes, yet were mainly prudently accumulating bitcoin, then they still likely would have costs below $20k per coin, so it would likely be the case that guys holding BTC 6-10 years in bitcoin would have profit levels mostly falling in the 4x to 100x range, and so we can likely see that time in the market pays off more than timing the market, so it may not be as BIG of a concern for someone with 20x to 100x profits to be shaving off a bit of his stash, and there might not even be compelling reasons for shaving off large amounts, just portions of the stash from time to time, and surely better to shave off some of the stash while BTC prices are going up rather than down, and whether there is any exact excitement around round numbers like $100k might relate more to individuals getting caught up in round numbers rather than there really being much difference between $70k and $108k in terms of shaving off small portions of a stash for whatever reasons might be considered by the longer term HODLer.

I am not going to proclaim that merely being a longer term HODLer contributes to not being a weak hand, so there still are likely needs to avoid overly generalizing what we believe to be happening, and I have already historically seen a lot of folks still within their first cycle selling way too many BTC too soon, and sure it is their choice, but it is a form of weak-handedness if it results in selling too many coins too soon, even though at the time that a person makes such sales of their BTC they frequently don't realize that they are not going to be able to buy back as many coins as they had, especially if they sell a lot of it and end up consuming it or sometimes unrealistically waiting for dips that do not end up happening.

Quote from: tiCeR on Today at 04:55:08 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 01:16:34 AM

Quote from: Ruttoshi on December 22, 2024, 04:46:26 PM

...

It is true that some folks will purposefully push the amount that they invest within their discretionary income to a level that is aggressive, yet they still have their other back up funds covered, in the event that they might make some miscalculations from time to time, and they also might purposefully shoot to invest towards a place that it 20% to 50% or even higher than their target just so that they are clear and comfortable that they have enough BTC.

A person who practices his system a lot will be less likely to make severe mistakes due to ongoing practices, yet at the same time, a person might not realize that he made a mistake until after he is faced with consequences of the mistake... and I would think that the more a person practices, then the more likely that the mistakes that are made are not going to end up causing any kinds of high levels of damage upon him - especially since there are always going to be trade-offs that are made, and a person can only attempt to balance trade-offs as best as he can based on his own then knowledge of the circumstances, which there are going to be known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns that should be attempted to be accounted for.

But talking about aggressiveness, that is such a subjective subject. As you mentioned, if someone goes beyond their initially set target investment by maybe 20% to 50%, than whatever their target was before, we would probably consider this practice aggressive in relation to what was the investment target before.

I am sure that there are several ways that targets could be framed, yet I was thinking about going 20% to 50% beyond the target for both peace of mind, and just to have more comfort that they had reached enough BTC without making mistakes that would necessarily cause them to have to reverse their earlier assessment.

In another thread, I had used the example of a guy who might currently consider 21 BTC to be his fuck you status target, and so if he is at 35 BTC then he has about 66% more than his target. I am also presuming making assessments of BTC dollar value based on the 200-WMA and not based on spot price, so then there seems to be less room for error since, so far in bitcoin's history the 200-WMA has continued to go up, so I doubt it is helpful for a guy to be basing how many BTC he needs on spot prices, especially if he plans on mostly hanging onto his BTC and cashing out slowly (and sustainably) rather than cashing out in lump sums, which I personally find problematic in terms of assessing BTC value.. yet surely a person who has reached 20-50%, or even 66% higher than his target value, he will have more options to cash out lump sums too, within the amounts of his superfluous amounts of BTC that he has assessed himself as having... so the guy with 66% extra BTC could maybe make a lump sum cashing out of 10% to 90% of that extra BTC and he would still be in a position of having more than his target quantity of BTC.

Quote from: tiCeR on Today at 04:55:08 PM

But then when Elon Musk were to announce to invest $5 billion into BTC, would that be aggressive? It would mean he puts less than 1.2% of his wealth into BTC and that is only talking wealth as he could in theory generate tons of cashflow too.

Ultimately I think it depends on the ability to handle miscalculations or risks that could barely be anticipated. There was this one guy here who sold jewelry from his wife to go all in, I think that is a pretty aggressive approach although it could be argued that it was ok when everyone agreed to doing it. On the contrary it is hard to believe that some billionaires did (allegedly) not invest into BTC.

What's aggressive and what is not can be a wide range of factors to be considered the higher your net worth is. In the lower income ranges I think it's pretty straight forward that financial existence shouldn't be at risk, but then we all heard the stories where someone claimed to have sold their house, lived in a motorhome and won big time. But I have a hard time calling that a strategy... Cheesy

Surely personal wealth situations are going to differ, including accounting for all of the 9 individual factors.. and yeah, how to measure aggressiveness will differ in terms of other investments that a person might have and whether their income comes from passive sources or if they have to work for their income. Some forms of income are more regular and some forms are irregular, including if guys are engaging in a multitude of businesses that might require capital infusions from time to time, and may or may not have access to debt or government subsidies, depending on the kind and the size of the business.