left for me the perfect strategy for a newbie is the DCA regardless of whether people think it's a choice for investors to use whatever strategy they like.
If a newbie is starting his bitcoin investment with only lump sum and start waiting for a long time to buy again will not be helpful for him to keep his bitcoin accumulation ongoing. Instead of using a very huge amount to buy at once, it's better that he lump sum with 20% to start right away and use 70% to spread into several weeks with DCA so that he will have the opportunity to buy bitcoin at various price every week to keep on accumulating his bitcoin regularly with consistency and persistent, so that it will be part of him to keep on buying for 4-10 years and till he reaches his bitcoin target.
It is good that an investor uses the right accumulation strategy at the right time so that it will enable you increase your bitcoin portfolio in a fast pace which should be your priority. But if you choose the wrong strategy at the wrong time, it will affect the fast growth of your bitcoin portfolio. When you buy with lump sum once in a while, you will miss out the dip because the price of bitcoin might go below your entry point but with DCA, you will buy at every price in the market including the bottom line of the dip.
We're on the same page, seems you didn't get my point mate, it was based on Jays statement and I didn't mean that a newbie should or must start with the lump-sum I meant that, between the lump-sum and buying the dip strategy, starting with lump-sum for a newbie is more preferable than the other, atleast the investor have some stash of Bitcoin stored in their portfolio and when the price of Bitcoin goes higher then what the person is holding would definitely increase, it's far more better than waiting for the dip when one has nothing in their portfolio or yet to start. Of course I'm fully aware that the DCA is the most appropriate strategy for a newbie investor to start with, maybe you didn't take note of that or trace the reason for my statement concerning the lump-sum approach but were too bothered about correcting it whereas you didn't understand my point.