First off, your quoting sucks, OsaiEmma. I think that I fixed this one, but you need to figure out how to more correctly quote posts.

Back to the topic.  

I am reluctant to suggest what guys should do exactly, even though there are likely needs to create some kinds of financial cushions in order to stay in a kind of sustainable withdrawal status rather than devolving into too much risk taking that would end up playing out like gambling, which no one should be wanting to be putting their personal finance management into a gambling kind of status, even if such status might be temporary.  

General practices would be that guys want to hold 3-6 months of emergency funds in a form of cash, when there could be an emergency, yet if in advance, we already know that BTC prices have tendencies to be quite volatile, yet we still don't know if the BTC spot price is going to go below the 200-WMA... yet we could anticipate that there could be some periods in which BTC prices do end up going below the 200-WMA.. Our withdrawal tool that I had previously cited does have some suggested advance month cashing out periods that are based on BTC price moves higher than the 200-WMA, and surely those kinds of advance month cashing out recommendations could be used to set aside some extra cash that could be used in periods that the BTC spot price gets close to the 25% above the 200-WMA or if the BTC price falls below the 200WMA.. and surely any of these kinds of preemptive strategies could end up running their own risks, so it is difficult to prescribe individually specific kinds of plays - even though surely the tool does attempt to give some guidelines for some of those kinds of extra month cash outs that could serve as insurance if the were timely employed.

Another thing is that the more extra BTC that a person has at the time of going into FIRE status, then the easier it should be to depart with some of the extra BTC during UPpity BTC price periods in order to attempt to make sure that there is some preparations and insurance in place in case the future brings forth extended periods in which the BTC price is close to or below the 200-WMA.


Another problem with shitcoins is that they don't really seem to be real/meaningful diversification, since historically they have largely remained correlated with BTC price performance, and so historically,  investing in shitcoins would not have had brought very much diversification, and there is no real evidence that any shitcoins will break their correlation in bitcoin in any kind of meaningful and/or reliable way... so even though breaking correlation is a possibility, it seems risky to bet on any kind of break of correlation, absent a guy having some specific and reliable knowledge about some specific shitcoin that might have success in the breaking of such correlation to bitcoin.  I have no clue of the existence of any such shitcoin, even though many of them market themselves as if they were capable of breaking such correlation with bitcoin..and/or that such break in correlation might go beyond short-term blips.


If you are not dealing with physical gold, then you seem to be running risk in terms of your brokers being able to get in and out of gold at times that you might need such liquidity, and sure it might work for portions of some liquidity that you might need.  I am not in such practice, even though I frequently argue against gold based on ideas of bitcoin being better rather than short term liquidity ideas that might be valid for some people and in some circumstances.. and sometimes we might ONLY want to keep a few months of our emergency funds in cash or cash equivalent products, so surely something that takes a bit longer to get in and out of might not be a problem so long as we also have the cash that might be used in the short term.

I personally start to get nervous if I start to see shortages in my cashflow 2 or 3 months in advance, and I would think that most folks with solid cashflow management will pretty much have money in the bank that is going to cover anything for the upcoming month, yet as soon as some kind of payment does not come in that is supposed to come in, then there surely might be some short term scrambling to make sure that enough funds are present for the current month and then there can become some cascading events on subsequent months if there might not be enough liquidity that can come available to cover those upcoming months.. which surely could be a bit of rolling needs for liquidity.

but then surely some uncertainties if certain lines of cashflow are suddenly either drying up or becoming less valuable.. so for example if a person is cashing out $6,666 every month from his bitcoin, so long as the BTC price stays 25% above the 200-WMA, yet if the BTC price is running close to that line, then he may well know that his authorized withdrawal amounts will be going lower with increment that the BTC price drops, which surely if he actually needs $6,666 per month, then he should be able to draw the difference from somewhere else during the time that the BTC price might be low.. and surely some guys might have already drawn several months in advance, so that if the amount goes low, they already have drawn several months in advance so they may well not need to panic, even if their current withdrawal amount has gone below their anticipated budget amount... .

Guys also might already be accustomed of living 25% or more above their needs, so they may well be able to cut back on their expenses something like 25% per month without suffering in any kind of a meaningful and/or painful way that goes beyond just the inconveniences of having a wee bit less luxury during those cutting back periods (presuming that they might be temporary periods).


Surely there are guys who get overly anxious in terms of wanting to get out of work or perhaps even claiming that they had retired early, and I would imagine that it is quite painful if  these guys have to go back to work because they miscalculated... So, surely there should be some desires that we are going to want to calculate in terms of making sure that we have more than enough rather than less than enough.  A difficulty continues to be figuring out that line, since surely none of us should want to continue to keep working, perhaps even several years when we might have already reached a status of enough and/or more than enough.. yet how much of a cushion we need may well be the $million question that we truly have to answer for ourselves, and if we answer wrong, then no one is going to come and save us or feel sorry for us.  We have to live with the ramifications, and sometimes if we quit our job, we might not be able to get back a similar one, so we might want to make sure that we don't quit prior to making sure that we have calculated sufficiently correctly in regards to both enough and more than enough... perhaps easier said than done?


For me, it makes sense, since not only does it seem to be able to sustain yourself on a perpetual basis without depleting your capital, you also likely need to account for the ongoing debasement of fiat, so that if you want to sustain your standard of living, then your income likely needs to increase with the debasement of fiat... Surely there are several ways to calculate, yet it seems to me to be a good foundation to presume perpetual sustainability rather than depletion of the capital, and sure of course, if we choose to purposefully deplete our principle faster than the sustainable rate, then that is a choice that we can make, yet I personally would prefer to start with the presumption of perpetual rather than a fixed number of years that it would last.

Surely, as you suggest, we could go into our FIRE status with a set number of years that we expect our funds to last, and that sounds like a personal choice rather than proclaiming that the one that is presumptively perpetual system does not make sense and asserting that the depleting (presumed number of years) system makes more sense.


Sure.. fair enough.  Let's say that we are 50 years old at the time that we go into FIRE status, then what is the material difference between having a system that is known to be 60 years versus one that is perpetual?  I would think that for all intents and purposes, even the one that is set up for 60 years is going to be set up as mostly the same as a perpetual one, except it will allow depleting in the final 10-20 years.

Are you want to to presume an older or a younger age in which a person is going into FIRE status?

I think in traditional systems, frequently there is a presumption of something around 30 years rather than 60 years, so we aren't going to be working until 80 and then labelling that FIRE?

I would imagine that many who are aiming towards some kind of FIRE implementation are wanting to enter into such status somewhere prior to turning 60 years if possible, and surely some are going to want to enter in their early 40s if they were able to do so... I personally think that the earlier we enter, the more likely that we are going to want to set up a system that is at least on the surface seeming to be perpetually sustainable, even though there may be some end period in which we purposefully might start to choose to deplete it at a faster rate than we had done in earlier years.

I tend to gather from your earlier posts that you are wanting to spend money sooner rather than later, and personally, I have difficulties understanding how that would be working in any kind of meaningful way that does not end up resulting in too much depletion of the capital (principle) too early.. but hey, maybe you have some system that you believe is going to work and hopefully you don't end up spending it all too soon merely because you think that it is possible to spend more on the front end, and I have my doubts about designing any system in that kind of way, especially if you are planning to live to 110.. which also seems a bit on the unrealistic side...even though it may not hurt to have a system in place, just in case, which seems to be arguing more the maintenance of a perpetual sustainable system rather than a front-depleting system.


I have my doubts about front-depleting working, but sure you can try it and find out whether it was a great idea or not.. .and yeah of course, we cannot really know in advance how long that we are going to live, which seems to be part of the justification to make sure we don't run out of capital too early.


For sure, you don't understand the basic concept, which is that the reason that you build up your investment portfolio to 25 years is because it allows you to withdraw 4% per year and to sustain your current standard of living, and if your money is earning on average of 4% per year, then your 25% investment (savings) is going to support you at that current withdrawal rate on a perpetual basis.  You ar not depleting the principle, so long as the money earns at least 4%..

Sure another problem is that you may well need to increase your  withdrawal rate each year based on the debasement of fiat... so that may well mean either needing to save more than 25 years or depleting your principle, and then such investment amount is no longer perpetually sustainable unless you are on average earning more than 4% on it (which of course is reasonably plausible with bitcoin but may well not be with other ways of investing your capital).


You don't have to penny pinch, but you do have to spend less than you earn so that any excess income would go into savings, and sure one of the ways to get there faster is to put more money into your investment/savings/retirement plan faster, so you can accomplish by spending less and/or earning more. It does not mean that you have to suffer, but sure, suffering could be a way to reach that FIRE status earlier.

From my point of view, it seems a bit presumptive to imagine that suffering has to happen in order to reach FIRE status early, even if suffering would likely expedite such process of getting to FIRE faster.  


Of course, investing and saving are similar concepts, and many of us surely would prefer that any money we set aside is holding or appreciating in value, so part of the problem of holding value in cash is that it tends to depreciate and many times banks are not giving an interest rate that keeps up with the speed that the cash is depreciating.  Accordingly, many of us will try to put our money into places that we consider will both appreciate in value, but hopefully appreciate in value faster than the depletion of the value of cash.  Different places to put money have differing levels of volatility or even certainty in terms of the return and also sometimes risk of losing in value rather than gaining in value, relative to cash (or even relative to one another).  

Personally, I doubt that it is very good to be classifying crypto (or shitcoins) stocks and/or even bitcoin as if they were all similar kinds of things.. surely some places to put your money are better than others, and likely since we are on a bitcoin forum, it is probably better to be focusing on learning bitcoin first and to create an investment strategy related to bitcoin rather than fucking around with shitcoins or even stocks.. so perhaps if we develop some bitcoin building strategies, then we might want to diversify beyond bitcoin after learning and building bitcoin first.  It seems to me that if if you don't first figure out how to manage bitcoin and cash first, then you are likely just shooting in the dark when it comes to other investments, whether stocks or shitcoins.  Surely if you come to bitcoin and you already have other investments, perhaps even including a 401k or even owning a personal residence or even a business, then you would be starting your investment into bitcoin with that kind of a background framework in regards to how you would consider allocating (or including) bitcoin within your investment plans and/or strategies.