Well maybe that's how inflation work in your country, but I want to tell you that inflation has absolutely nothing to do with increase of income, rather it can only increase the price and fall in the purchasing value of money, that's in terms of buying and selling, the examples you gave here does not clarify the meaning of inflation. Now let me make this clear to you, if your income is 1000 fiat currency which is equivalent to $100.  after inflation, the rate May likely fall below $80, that is to show that those folks who are earning below this amount may be affected, as they will be struggling to figure out thier expenses at same time trying to maintain their ongoingly buying of bitcoin.

You seem to just be making up standards.

Sure there can be stages in accumulation, and I suppose that there could be stages in overaccumulation.

There is also price based withdrawals and there are time based withdrawals.

If a person has reached overaccumulation status then it is likely optional for him whether he wants to buy back, yet if a person is selling within his overaccumulation status and not falling outside of his overaccumulation status then he does not have to buy back

I am not opposed to the idea of optional trading, including that selling on the way up and buying on the way down may well be o.k. for maintenance and/or portfolio insurance, yet there still are not obligations to continue to buy bitcoin in order to stay in overaccumulation status as long a the person is not selling so much bitcoin as to knock himself out of overaccumualtion status.

It seems problematic to have had worked 4-10 years or longer to reach overaccumulation status to then self-imposedly knock oneself out of overaccumulation status in order to be obligated towards getting back to overaccumulation status.


You are going to measure whether you reached overaccumulation status based on spot price?

So how are you going to manage that?

Changes in spot price is going to knock you out of overaccumulation status?

Sure, it is possible to have such a system, but you likely need to figure out some way of dealing with volatility.

I think that part of the reason that I like to assess overaccumulation based on the 200-WMA (and/or bottom prices) is because the 200-WMA has tended to continuously move up, and also the spot price is usually above the 200-WMA... so that gives a bit of additional cushion to attempt to deal with likely inevitable BTC price volatility.

I believe that it is not impossible to assess that you have reached overaccumuation status based on spot prices, but you have to figure out how to make sure that you are not falling in and out of overaccumulation status merely based on 5-10% price movements... so there likely needs to be some built in ways of dealing with such volatility, especially if you are largely planning to stay in bitcoin rather than put your money into inferior assets, such as the dollar, some other fiat or some dollar denominated asset that is also inevitably losing value.. and it seems that part of the reason to be attempting to value wealth and to keep wealth in bitcoin is because it seems that over the longer term it is holding its value better than fiat, even accounting for inflation and/or seemingly inevitable fiat debasement.


Surely each of us can have differing goals, yet I would think that many of us should not be planning to spend 4-10 years or longer to get to overaccumulation status and then to knock ourself out of such overaccumulation status.. merely because of sloppiness, inabilities to control our consumption and/or not being able to recognize and/or appreciate the value of his investment into bitcoin.. especially since it is likely that if we are in bitcoin, then we have already come to realize that bitcoin is amongst the best of investments if not the best of investments, so then why would we want to purposefully take ourself out of such investment either to put ourself into inferior investments or to engage in consumption that we feel that we are not able to control ourselves in such in terms of devolving into living beyond our means, which seems to be part of your build-in assumption SuperBitMan that justifies the spending of your bitcoin rather than engaging in deferred gratification and/or figuring out how to engage in sustainable withdrawal within your means rather than wanting to live outside of your means.  Again, surely it is your choice to squander away your wealth status by lack of foresight or insights regarding hte nature of the matter and/or the value of bitcoin.


If a person has discretionary income, then the question of self-confidences seems to be referring to questions regarding how much (or position size) rather than whether or not to invest into bitcoin.


Sure, if a person gets started and is regularly buying bitcoin within his discretionary income, then there could be various assessments along the way, and surely there is likely some value for each person to be considering his various personal factors, even if it may well take a long time to build up a bitcoin portfolio depending on his discretionary income and perhaps whether or not he might have other assets or any ability to front load his investment and/or position into bitcoin.


If you have come to the correct conclusion that long term holders do not necessarily need to sell their bitcoin, then why would they need to accumulate more bitcoin?


It is difficult to understand your point if you have no clue if the addresses are individual addresses or business addresses.

One of the preferred practices is not to reuse addresses... so many times larger holders might have transactions spread over a variety of bitcoin addresses.
 

I tend to agree that bitcoin is the best place to hold value.. yet it is also difficult to make blanket statements regarding what some others might be doing, even though surely there are attempts to assess the extent to which coins are moving around and which kinds of holders are selling their coins in order for various new entrants (or larger holders), such as Saylor/MSTR, Saylor/MSTR copy cats, Blackrock, governments to supposedly acquire and hold such coins.

In the end, each of us has to figure out the extent to which we are still accumulating coins or if we might be entering into sgtatges in which we might feel it is in our interests to sell some of our BTC at various price points, whether we consider $100k to be an important price point or not.  I doubt that longer term holders give too many shits about $50k versus $100k versus some other number depending on if his average cost per coin might be less than $100, less than $1k or some other cost per coin.


Generally speaking, none of us should be investing into bitcoin, unless we have discretionary income, since if we invest into bitcoin outside of our discretionary income that would be gambling and not investing.

Surely, there could be a person who has reserve funds that allows him to invest into bitcoin, yet reserve funds are built up from discretionary income.. so at some point if it is appearing that the person does not have enough funds to cover expenses and/or an ability to earn (or generate more discretionary funds into the future), then he cannot invest into bitcoin... .because he does not have available money.  It hardly makes sense to proclaim that a person can invest into bitcoin without having discretionary funds. 


I guess that I also find this whole scenario as confusing, since if a person has reached a state of overaccumulation, then he has his bitcoin that he is able to cash out whenever he likes within either price-based or time-based withdrawal strategies... sure, he may well develop other funds or places that he holds his value so that he does not necessarily spend from his bitcoin at times that he might not want to spend from them.

So let's say if a guy might have some thing like an $80k per year withdrawal rate, and so he knows that currently he needs something like 16.3 BTC as a minimum right now to be able to retain such withdrawal rate, but if the guy has 25 bitcoin or even 30 bitcoin, then he has quite a bit of an overaccumulation status, so maybe he will withdraw some a quantity of income in advance so that he does not have to rely on the bitcoin price in terms of when he is making his withdrawals.

Maybe since the beginning of 2023, the guy had already been withdrawing at the rate of around $80k per year, yet in early 2023, he knew that he needed  in the ballpark of 33 BTC in order to be able to sustainably withdraw at the $80k per year rate, yet he had 40 BTC at that time, yet he wanted to be careful not to overly withdraw bitcoin because he saw that the BTC price was relatively low in compared with the 200-WMA.

So still maybe in the past 2.5 years since January 2023, he had withdrawn a total of somewhere between 10 and 15 BTC, and that is why today, he has 25 BTC rather than the 40 BTC that he had in early 2023 when he had around 7 BTC of an overaccumulation, and today, he has right around 8.7 BTC as his over accumulation amount of BTC.. and sure, each of us has to work out these numbers to make sure that we have a sufficient amount of over accumulated amounts and that we are not overly spending ourselves to knock ourselves out of overaccumulation status..

In other words, there can be times in which the BTC price is relatively higher than the 200-WMA and the guy will swell some extra BTC so that he won't feel a need to sell much if any BTC when the BTC price is within 25% of the 200-WAMA or even lower than the 200-WMA.. which has happened from time to time in bitcoin's history.


The idea of selling  10% every time that the BTC price doubles is one possible price-based system of sustainable withdrawal, and like you suggested both the amount and the starting point of when you start to employ such a system can be adjusted based on your own costs and/or your own individual circumstances. 

There is also time-based sustainable withdrawal which have differing parameters but also discussed in that same sustainable withdrawal thread.

Both price-based and time-based sustainable withdrawal ideas (and strategies) presume that guys get their bitcoin holdings to an overaccumulation status first.


Surely changes in the cost of living can affect how much each of us are able to invest in bitcoin based on the possibilities that our expenses might go up faster than our income, which reduces the amount of discretionary income that we have available to buy bitcoin and also DCA does not necessarily save us from the effects of inflation even though we can adjust within our DCA approach to make sure that we are determining our own chosen level of aggressiveness that goes along with how much discretionary income we have and how much of that we want to dedicate towards our bitcoin accumulation.   

You are also correct, ejikeme24, to suggest that changes in our cost of living including if our income does not keep up with our increases in our expenses could affect how long it takes for us to reach overaccumulation status... and, sure, our numbers for overaccumulation status might end up changing, so maybe before 2020 we were thinking that we were going to need something like $40k per year to support ourselves, yet after we saw the events of around that time, we decided to adjust our amount upwards (and even radically) to $80k in order to account for the radical matters we were seeing in the world at that time. .. Sure, maybe there might not have had been a need to double the amount, yet we decided that we would prefer to error on the side of being safe rather than to under assess the amount of income that we felt that we needed.


Surely there are cases in which a person is in their prime earning years (or maybe he just graduated from college), and so his income may well be growing faster than his expenses since he is getting promoted and moving up within the place that he is working.

We cannot necessarily presume that incomes go up with inflation, and there are even people in fixed income statuses (such as retired folks) who tend to have incomes that do not go up with the cost of living, and those people tend to be the worst affected during societal changes.. .. since many times working folks will have some abilities to change jobs or to change training based on changes in the economy and their abilities to follow the more lucrative jobs.


Your assumptions seem wrong Creeper0 even if there might be incidents in which folks can make sure that their income is going up with the cost of living.. especially certain industries might also be able to charge more for their goods and/or services, yet we cannot assume across the board that income will go up at least the same as expenses.


You are just making shit up.

Sure there are some folks who target round numbers to sell off portions of their BTC, but I bet there are going to be a lot of folks regretting that they sold way the fuck too much BTC too soon if they ended up selling large portions of their BTC around $100k.

The same was true around $1k and also around $10k.

There were surely folks selling a lot of BTC around those numbers, and a decent number of them had regrets for selling way too much BTC too soon.

To the extent that you are identifying that guys who have been in bitcoin a long time might just sell certain portions of their BTC stash at certain price points, then that part is likely correct, but I would not be reading too much into the likely bullshit claims that a lot of guys are selling their BTC at and around $100k just because $100k seems like a lot blah blah blah.

I already gave some examples to argue this point, but let me more or less reiterate some variation of the example that I already made, and let's say that a guy largely accumulated his bitcoin between 2013 and 2015, and he screwed some matters up and so he had various buys that were scattered at various prices, which ultimately led him to investing around $30k over that time, and he accumulated a bit more than 100 BTC  (yes this link shows that more than 100 BTC is reasonably attained between 2013 and 2015 for $30k)..

And so maybe he was in his early to mid-30s at the start of this and his income was around $70k per year, and so surely he would like to have an income of more than $100k per year, yet over the years, he might have had sold some of his bitcoin at various price points along the way.

Maybe something like this:

2017 - 10 BTC for around $14k each - $140k

2021 - 10 BTC for around $50k each -  $500k.

2024  10 BTC for around $65k         $650k

Either the guy still has 70 BTC, or maybe he chose to sell a bit more bitcoin?

I am not sure what the fuck he needs to sell more bitcoin at around $100k, if he had already sold around $1.3 million worth over the years. What is his rush to sell any bitcoin at $100k?

He might even consider some of his earlier sales as screw ups.


This part all makes sense in terms of we should not be assuming that normies are inclined to sell a bunch of their BTC at these prices, even if they might have had sold some of their BTC at various points int he past 10-ish years.

Actually even with my above example of a guy who might have had accumulated around 100 BTC in 2013 to 2015, the guy may have also continued to accumulate more BTC between 2015 and 2025, even though sure I was willing to go along with the example that claims the guy to have done the bulk of his BTC accumulation more than 10 years ago.


The general tendencies is that a large number of governments try to blame all kinds of factors on the changes in the cost of living and why things are going up, when the fact of the matter is that they are engaging in the production of extra money as a way to fuck people over (to steal from normies without getting their consent). . .Sure there are some folks who benefit from such system, but it does not tend to be the overall population, but instead some folks who might be close to the money printer who might be getting free money or benefitting from the free money printing that many governments (some governments are more irresponsible than others) are carrying out to get money for free that others have to work for. .and yeah of course some kinds of work do have better bargaining power as compared with other jobs, and it is not always merit based to figure out how various jobs might benefit more than others and some jobs are stuck with flat wages or maybe even just small raises that are not enough to make up for the amounts of their rising costs.

You are right about your definition of inflation but I don't think the inflation that dude is talking about is outside Bitcoin investment perhaps the inflation the dude is talking about is the Bitcoin inflation and by right inflation should not bother investors because the DCA method is always available so one can actually get Bitcoin and hold despite the inflation and another word for this inflation can still be seen as market skyrocketing though some investors don't invest when the market has gone up simply because they have this trader mindset that, the market will come down and when it comes down they will be at loss lol, that is really crazy but people who understands will buy regardless and hold even knowing that the price will come down because Bitcoin is a volatile asset.

If I may ask you, who will increase your income for you if your salary is fixed or you have a fixed income when inflation hits the economy. It shows that you don't understand the negative impact that inflation causes to people income. It reduces the purchasing power of money. What you buy for $10 dollar would be sold for $11 and you are still receiving the same income which means that the value of your income have reduced. This means that if you are DCAing with $20 weekly, after all your monthly expense and needs, you will be left with little amount of money and your DCA amount might become $10.

Purchasing Power of the U.S. Dollar Over Time.


This is why as you are investing in bitcoin, you need to find a means of increasing your income so that you can have the chance of buying bitcoin aggressively and balance your financial life when inflation is around the corner.

You may have a misconception about inflation. Inflation only guarantees a decrease in the value of fiat against goods. That is, the goods you can buy today for 100 fiat, you will have to buy for 110 fiat after 10% inflation. The biggest impact on investment is that your expenses increase and your discretionary income decreases. Naturally, you will be forced to reduce your DCA if your income does not increase with inflation.

For example, your income is 1000 fiat, which is equivalent to $100. Suppose your expenses on income are $60 and your discretionary income is $40. Now if 10% inflation occurs in your country, the price of goods in your country will increase and you will have to spend $6 more to buy goods than before. Now your expenses on income ($100) are $66. Since your income has not increased, your discretionary money after expenses will be $34, which is $6 less than before. Naturally, you will be able to manage your investments using less money than before and will be forced to slow down your investments.

Inflation does not work that way bro, in fact inflation is decrease in purchasing power of you fiat currency and even in inflation, there is no guarantee that your income increase at all from its source and you would find out that you are using more units of fiat to purchase same necessities and it can reduce the funds you invest into bitcoin if your income does not increase.

Leet us take for example: You previously invested 1000 fiat which amounted to $100 into bitcoin in your example, and after inflation possibly your currency crashed against the dollar by 20%, the 1000 fiat you previously invested into bitcoin would now be worth $80 instead of $100 and you would need an additional 200 fiat to invest your normal $100 into bitcoin. Not to mention that with inflation, your expenses budget would tend to rise as more money may be needed to attend to same expenses and this would in turn even reduce your resultant discretionary income and further cause a decline in the dollar equivalent of your normal investment amounts.

Is that how inflation works over there in your country?

During inflation the cost of commodity gets so fucking high and I believe the cost of living which is supposed to necessarily increased isn't done so by all means and this can affect your steady deposit by all means that's if you are limited to that only source of funds. But there is always a room for readjusting so that everything still goes smoothly as plan.

I am a bit confused by your sentence. How can we be affected by inflation while investing? From my limited knowledge, what I understand is that with inflation, your income will also increase and you will be able to buy the same amount of Bitcoin as before. For example, before inflation, your income would be 1000 fiat which is equivalent to $100. After inflation, your income would be 1500 fiat which is equivalent to $100. Here I do not see the possibility of your deposit process being slow. Due to inflation, the value of your country's fiat decreases, but the stable currency ($) remains the same. So I can clearly say that inflation cannot have any effect on your investment journey. I think your investment journey will be the same during an inflationary cycle.

If you have ever seen an investor who sells all his Bitcoins in order to hold fiat, for me such a person is not an investor but just an ordinary person who does not understand the concept of investment and it is possible that the person does not know much about Bitcoin. Because for investors who are already familiar with Bitcoin and also the concept of long-term investment, the person will definitely not sell all the Bitcoins that he has held so far and even if the person wants to sell it, it may only be in small amounts for certain reasons.

That is why some people who want to become investors in Bitcoin first choose to increase their monthly income so that they can use large amounts of capital to invest in Bitcoin. But for me, people who want to accumulate Bitcoin with a capital that is not too large at first are also not a problem because it is also a wise step to take so that over time they will also try to increase their capital in order to make the amount of accumulation larger. Because when this can be done more consistently, I think the amount will also be more even though it does not have to exceed ten years.