It is more realistic if someone that is a starter, to focus more on accumulating Bitcoin aggressively and continue to buy consistently instead of waiting for a dip. DCA method of investing in Bitcoin is more important and more realistic and it is more sustainable for someone that is a newbie, we know there are challenges and obstacle that might come our way during this process, that is why continuity and Consistency is important, Continuous accumulation to build our asset is more important than waiting for a dip to occur which we might not know when exactly a dip would occur.
And a newbie trying to start a bitcoin investment there is always difficulties having backup funds, it absolutely makes no sense for a newbie to hold on to cash instead of investing in Bitcoin using the DCA strategies on a weekly basis, there is absolutely no importance in building Backup funds before making investment, Buying aggressively and ruthlessness is the best strategy for a Beginner. This strategies helps us build our portfolio.
I disagree on this your statement here, am talking about the bold words in your write up, how does buying aggressively be the best strategy for a beginner?
Don't you know that by doing so, if you over invest more than what you can afford to do away with, you might be compel to temper with your holdings in the nearest future, because you can't be using money meant to sorts out your basic needs to invest aggressively and be expecting not to fall back to it Shortly when the basic needs hasn't been addressed.
Am not saying that buying aggressively is bad, what am trying to say is that if you don't have the financial power or leverage to do it, don't do it, because it might put you into a very difficult situation financially which might weakens your ability to hold strong, so as we are buying and accumulating, let's try to do it at a pace that it would not be a trouble to our ability to finance our daily lives.
Maybe you are still not clear with the meaning of buying aggressively. Every bitcoin purchase is advised to be made from the discretionary income, now the quantity of the discretionary income you invest into bitcoin with respect to the total discretionary income is what determines your level of aggressiveness, if you invest very little quantity, let's say 30% of your discretionary income, you can be said to be whimpy and are less aggressive compared to the person who invests 50%, which is in turn less aggressive than a person that invests 60% of their total discretionary income into bitcoin. Agressiveness in purchasing bitcoin shows seriousness when it is not over done.
Aggressiveness is good, but Ruthlessness is going very extreme without reservation or boundary and this might even entail investing more than only your discretionary income into bitcoin which might include money supposed to be utilized for expenses and it can be termed being overly aggressive and instead of being helpful, it is a disastrous approach to accumulating bitcoin and I would not be supporting any investor, not just a newbie to go that route.
Many times newbies are not going to be in a position to really invest either aggressively or ruthelessly, since they are likely ging to simultaneously build their various back up funds and to get into a bit of practice to make sure that they are used to putting aside some of their income for 4-10 years or longer. .. so if they are seriously putting their money invested into bitcoin for 4-10 years or longer, then they are not going to have access to that money, and so if they make mistakes in regards to their level of aggressiveness (including that they had gotten too aggressive), then they need to figure out from where to make up for their mistakes, and so personally I don't have any problem with the idea of trying to be as aggressive as possible, but surely newbies to bitcoin still need to get used to bitcoin, and sure, we should not presume that a newbie to bitcoin does not have any investment experience, so they do have to adjust their level of aggressiveness also to their personal circumstances and/or other investment and/or cashflow management experiences.
I do agree that Barikui1 may be wrongly describing the level of aggressiveness that newbies should generally be aspiring to achieve in their bitcoin investment and/or their cashflow management... .and by the way, an overwhelming majority of the world's population is not really used to planning for, building and/or maintaining any financial investments, including planning for 4-10 years and or longer, so I think that it is safe to presume that most bitcoin newbies will have to spend some time getting used to investing into bitcoin rather than presuming that they can start their plan through aggressiveness and ruthlessness.
[edited out]
What you described as less aggressive, aggressive and overly aggressive should also be dependent on individuals discretionary income per total income periodically.
You are describing aggressiveness versus whimpy wrongly, since it does not depend on the quantity of discretionary income, but instead about how a person chooses to invest into bitcoin within the discretionary income that he has.
It might sound similar, but it is different... how whimpy or how aggressive a person is remains a choice and it is on a sliding scale rather than absolute, so a person can be more aggressive or less aggressive in comparison to his own choices, yet to compare with someone else is likely a bit more complicated since their is discretion in regards to how aggressvie any of us want to be and even our psychology (as a factor) is going to be different from one person to another, so sure, we could have two people with vary similar incomes and similar expenses, yet their psychological or even their consumption differences can affect how aggressive and/or whimpy that they choose to be within the amount of discretionary income they choose to put into bitcoin versus putting into other places, whether putting their discretionary income into other investments, back up funds and/or consumption.
Even within their already existing expenses, one person versus another might choose to live a more frugal versus a more extravagent lifestyle, and surely the more frugal one would end up with more discretionary income, yet his choices about whether or not to be frugal does not necessarily mean that one person is correct and the other is incorrect, even though 4-10 years or more down the road, they may end up with quite differing outcomes, even if they might have had been starting out from very similar salary and/or expenses levels. Choices have consequences
When a person earns an amount which allows him $500 discretionary income weekly his 30% is $150 50%=$250 and 60%=$300. When you compare with someone whose weekly discretionary income is $200, his 30% is $60, his 50%=$100 while his 60%=$120.
That is a fair way of outlining the parameters of comparison in a fairly objective way.. but it still remains discretionary in regards to how aggressive or how whimpy that any particular person might choose to be... and many times, many of us would suggest investing anything was better than investing nothing, but still a person who chooses to invest into bitcoin overly whimpily, then he may not really see meaningful results, even after 4-10 years or more investing into bitcoin... so there can be disadvantages in regards to investing into bitcoin whimpily, yet even guys who invested into bitcoin wimpily 8 to 12 years ago have been rewarded quite greatly, even with their relative whimpiness... but at least they did something, as compared to some guys who might have had known about bitcoin, but still chose not to take any actions in the direction of investing into it.
Now describing aggressiveness by percentage is practically ironous as even a person's 100% may not amount to another person's 10%. What really matters is your consistency and fairness.
Describing in terms of a person's individual circumstances is way more appropriate as compared to using objective amounts and comparing one person to another person based on something like $100 per week, even though surely it is more concrete to give suggestions in terms of dollar amounts rather than talking in terms of percentages, since people can frequently think more clearly in terms of their weekly dollar amounts rather than in terms of their percentage amounts, even though if we are talking with people we sometimes might need to talk in terms of both dollars and percentage amounts in order to help them to be able to help themselves in regards to what they might want to do.
As your discretionary income rises, it is advisable to also boost your emergency funds alongside your investments fund.
If your discretionary income increases, then you have more options to consume and invest. it is not necessarily logical that you would increase your emergency funds based on your discretionary income rising, since emergency funds are in anticipation of expenses, so if your expenses are going up, then it would be logical to increase your emergency funds.. and sure, some guys might specifically choose to increase their emergency funds just to be more comfortable, but more often guys might just increase their reserve funds based on increases in their discretionary income rather than their emergency funds since reserve funds have more flexibility in terms of how they might be delegated to be used as compared with emergency funds.
DCA principles is still the best and a wage receiver, your monthly income is very documented and could allow anyone for proper planning. In cases of a sudden increase in income leading to a surplus discretionary income, investment by lump-sum is advised based on the consequent discretionary income rise.
This sounds correct.
Buying aggressively when there's no pay-rise could endanger your investments and could lead you into loss when things go sour.
This makes no sense. You can choose to increase or decrease your aggressiveness based on income that you already have. If you receive more income, then you have more income and presumptively more discretionary income, unless your expenses went up, so if you receive more income and you keep the amount of your bitcoin investment the same, then automatically by definition you are decreasing your level of aggressiveness, so if your discretionary income goes up, then in order to maintain your same level of prior aggressiveness in bitcoin, then you would have to raise your bitcoin investment amount.
[edited out]
The longer the scope of the investment, the longer your portfolio will be strengthened and you have the potential to earn a large amount. Those who have invested on the start of Bitcoin and many may not know that Bitcoin's current progress will be a major spread. There are many who invested Bitcoin with $ 1000 Today, but today they have had the opportunity to earn a lot of money Suppose you invest $ 2000 in Bitcoin in 2012 and you have forgotten that investment. But today, when Bitcoin's sky kisses emerged, you could see 10 times more money deposited in your hostel today.
So I think the Bitcoin market will always be bullsh and bearer With all this you will have to deposit Bitcoin for a long time 8-10 years And you can use the DCA method to avoid market instability.
You may well be correct to proclaim that any person getting into bitcoin earlier will be better off than persons getting into bitcoin later, but your examples are hardly helpful and/or realistic in regards to attempting to describe real challenges that any current investor might have in regards to figuring out strategies to accumulated bitcoin.
Even you, registered on the forum for ONLY a year, but talking about persons invested 8-10 years or longer? Is your point to just put some quantity of money into bitcoin and then sit on it, or are you planning to deploy ongoing investment practices?
There can be some value in terms of investing and then not taking any further actions for several years, yet I personally consider that active investing and active involvement (such as weekly buying) is likely a better approach as compared to someone who might have lump sum bought bitcoin 8 to 10 or more years ago.