It just does not seem logical to have a top for this cycle that is anywhere less than $180k or so.., except maybe if we end up discovering some really outrageously large fractional reserve systems that would then sour sentiment on the industry for another couple of years.. .. or some other scandalous unraveling.  

In other words, even though there is a lot of desires for BIGGER players to wreck the non-status quo rich HODLers, it still seems like more pain would be done by deploying another pump or stairstep move to the UPpity that takes away "early status" to another group of fence-sitters that had refused to get themselves involved in bitcoin and to build their bitcoin stake earlier rather than later.

And of this ongoing fence-sitting does not even need to be at a conscious level, since down the road it is quite likely going to cost most if not all of the no coiners and the low coiners a lot more to get themselves into bitcoin rather than what is happening with their current status of either ignoring bitcoin or remaining ignorant of the greatness of the corn (which likely either means looking into bitcoin more or at least taking some kind of a stake, even a whimpy stake just to have some skin in the game, since ongoingly, it is likely going to continue to be way better to have the status of a low coiner than a no coiner).


I am not sure where the line should be officially drawn in terms of luxurious consumption.. 10% to 20%?  The example of 5% (spending $250k with a NW of $5 million) seems more than reasonable., yet to really figure out the situation, we probably would need to know more about the various other frivolous (consumption-oriented) stuff the guy is buying?

We probably need to know more aboutI have already asserted my own view that a guy's spending of 10% of the various other frivolous stuff the200-WMA valuation of a his BTC holdings per year is perpetually sustainable... so long as such guy would be taking a few precautions to reduce such spending during periods that the BTC spot price is buying?less than 25% above the 200-WMA... so we can look at any BTC holdings and valuate it by the 200-WMA and then figure out the sustainable withdrawal rate based on those factors.

I have already asserted my own view that a guy's spendingSurely many of 10% ofus get caught up upon the 200-WMA valuationspot price valuations of a guy'sour BTC holdings per year is perpetually sustainable... so long as he takes a few precautions to reduce such spending during periods, yet since we know that the BTC spot price is less than 25% above the 200-WMAprices fluctuate so much, we may frequently find ourselves becoming overly exuberant in our calculations of our own wealth and/or our own spending possibilities.

Surely manyAlternatively, we might make some calculation of us get caught up upon the spot price valuationsvalue of our BTCbitcoin holdings, yet since we know that might be subjected to a reduction of the BTC prices fluctuate so muchspot price peaks, we may frequently find ourselves becoming overexuberantwhich surely is in our calculationsthe spirit of the right direction that comes from going with the 200-WMA, even though the 200-WMA plays out as a bit of a lagging indicator.. yet even the delayed indicator status of the 200-WMA can be used to our own wealth and/oradvantage in order to make sure that we do not overly exuberantly withdraw from our own possibilitiesbitcoin holdings at a rate that is greater than our bitcoin holdings are expected ability to hold its dollar value (or it's real world goods and services value).

Alternatively, we might make some alternative calculation ofSo let's say the value that mightquestion in Naiive's above tweet example were to be subjectedin regards to a reductionperson who had an overwhelming majority of the spot price peaks, which surely is in the spirit of the right direction that comes from going with the 200his quasi-WMAliquid and countable wealth in bitcoin, even though it is a bit of a delayed indicator.. yet even itand let's delayed indicator status can be used to our advantagesay that Naiive et al may have had been getting pretty excited in orderrecent times by getting to make sure that we do not overly exuberantly withdraw from our bitcoin at a rate that is greater than its expected abilitystatus in which BTC's spot prices were starting to hold itsshow $5 million in value in his BTC holdings.

So let's say the question in Naiive's above tweet example were to be a person who had an overwhelming majority of his quasi-liquid and countable wealth in bitcoinwith this framework, and let's saywe might conjecture that Naiive et al may have had been getting excited by getting to a status in which BTC's spot price was starting to show $5 million in value.

So maybeperhaps he has somewhere in the ballpark of 42.612 BTC that would also currently have a 200-WMA value of $2.193 million.  This guy need not get overly excited about selling a bunch of his BTC, but instead he can figure out his budget by calculating a sustainable withdrawal rate from his current stash and based on the 200-WMA valuation, which I would consider to be $219.3k annually or $18,272 monthly (based on a 10% annual withdrawal rate based on the 200-WMA).

HeThe guy could choose to withdraw a whole year from his BTC holdings in advance, yet I would be careful in regards to withdrawing too much at once, so maybe withdrawing $200k rather than the full amount.. or if he chooses to withdraw $300k, then maybe he might need to count it asthat kind of a withdrawwithdrawal as one that coverswould cover 18 months of his withdrawals into the future.

In any event there are various ways tosuch a guy could extract value from such a decently large quantity of currently 42.612 bitcoin without overdoing it and while also maintaining some appreciation in making attempts to have his withdrawal levels to be sustainable, and sure he can calculate if he wants to on average to deplete his BTC holdings, which would mean withdrawing at a greater than 10% rate or if he would rather have some confidence that his BTC holdings are continuingwere going to continue to grow faster than his withdrawal rate by choosing, then he would choose a less than 10% per year withdrawal rate based on the 200-WMA valuation of his holdings.

It just does not seem logical to have a top for this cycle that is anywhere less than $180k or so.., except maybe if we end up discovering some really outrageously large fractional reserve systems that would then sour sentiment on the industry for another couple of years.. .. or some other scandalous unraveling.  

In other words, even though there is a lot of desires for BIGGER players to wreck the non-status quo rich HODLers, it still seems like more pain would be done by deploying another pump or stairstep move to the UPpity that takes away "early status" to another group of fence-sitters that had refused to get themselves involved in bitcoin and to build their bitcoin stake earlier rather than later.

And of this ongoing fence-sitting does not even need to be at a conscious level, since down the road it is quite likely going to cost most if not all of the no coiners and the low coiners a lot more to get themselves into bitcoin rather than what is happening with their current status of either ignoring bitcoin or remaining ignorant of the greatness of the corn (which likely either means looking into bitcoin more or at least taking some kind of a stake, even a whimpy stake just to have some skin in the game, since ongoingly, it is likely going to continue to be way better to have the status of a low coiner than a no coiner).


I am not sure where the line should be officially drawn in terms of luxurious consumption.. 10% to 20%?  The example of 5% (spending $250k with a NW of $5 million) seems more than reasonable.

We probably need to know more about the various other frivolous stuff the guy is buying?

I have already asserted my own view that a guy's spending of 10% of the 200-WMA valuation of a guy's holdings per year is perpetually sustainable... so long as he takes a few precautions to reduce such spending during periods that the BTC spot price is less than 25% above the 200-WMA.

Surely many of us get caught up upon the spot price valuations of our BTC holdings, yet since we know that BTC prices fluctuate so much, we may frequently find ourselves becoming overexuberant in our calculations of our own wealth and/or our own possibilities.

Alternatively, we might make some alternative calculation of the value that might be subjected to a reduction of the spot price peaks, which surely is in the spirit of the right direction that comes from going with the 200-WMA, even though it is a bit of a delayed indicator.. yet even it's delayed indicator status can be used to our advantage in order to make sure that we do not overly exuberantly withdraw from our bitcoin at a rate that is greater than its expected ability to hold its value.

So let's say the question in Naiive's above tweet example were to be a person who had an overwhelming majority of his quasi-liquid and countable wealth in bitcoin, and let's say that Naiive et al may have had been getting excited by getting to a status in which BTC's spot price was starting to show $5 million in value.

So maybe he has somewhere in the ballpark of 42.612 BTC that would also have a 200-WMA value of $2.193 million.  This guy need not get overly excited about selling a bunch of his BTC, but instead he can figure out his budget by calculating a sustainable withdrawal rate, which I would consider to be $219.3k annually or $18,272 monthly.

He could choose to withdraw a whole year in advance, I would be careful in regards to withdrawing too much at once, so maybe withdrawing $200k rather than the full amount.. or if he chooses to withdraw $300k, then maybe he might need to count it as a withdraw that covers 18 months into the future. In any event there are various ways to extract value from such a decently large quantity of bitcoin without overdoing it and while also maintaining some appreciation in making attempts to have his withdrawal levels to be sustainable, and sure he can calculate if he wants to on average deplete his BTC holdings, which would mean withdrawing at a greater than 10% rate or if he would rather have some confidence that his BTC holdings are continuing to grow faster than his withdrawal rate by choosing a less than 10% per year withdrawal rate based on the 200-WMA valuation.

I am not sure where the line should be officially drawn in terms of luxurious consumption.. 10% to 20%?  The example of 5% (spending $250k with a NW of $5 million) seems more than reasonable.

We probably need to know more about the various other frivolous stuff the guy is buying?

I have already asserted my own view that a guy's spending of 10% of the 200-WMA valuation of a guy's holdings per year is perpetually sustainable... so long as he takes a few precautions to reduce such spending during periods that the BTC spot price is less than 25% above the 200-WMA.

Surely many of us get caught up upon the spot price valuations of our BTC holdings, yet since we know that BTC prices fluctuate so much, we may frequently find ourselves becoming overexuberant in our calculations of our own wealth and/or our own possibilities.

Alternatively, we might make some alternative calculation of the value that might be subjected to a reduction of the spot price peaks, which surely is in the spirit of the right direction that comes from going with the 200-WMA, even though it is a bit of a delayed indicator.. yet even it's delayed indicator status can be used to our advantage in order to make sure that we do not overly exuberantly withdraw from our bitcoin at a rate that is greater than its expected ability to hold its value.

So let's say the question in Naiive's above tweet example were to be a person who had an overwhelming majority of his quasi-liquid and countable wealth in bitcoin, and let's say that Naiive et al may have had been getting excited by getting to a status in which BTC's spot price was starting to show $5 million in value.

So maybe he has somewhere in the ballpark of 42.612 BTC that would also have a 200-WMA value of $2.193 million.  This guy need not get overly excited about selling a bunch of his BTC, but instead he can figure out his budget by calculating a sustainable withdrawal rate, which I would consider to be $219.3k annually or $18,272 monthly.

He could choose to withdraw a whole year in advance, I would be careful in regards to withdrawing too much at once, so maybe withdrawing $200k rather than the full amount.. or if he chooses to withdraw $300k, then maybe he might need to count it as a withdraw that covers 18 months into the future. In any event there are various ways to extract value from such a decently large quantity of bitcoin without overdoing it and while also maintaining some appreciation in making attempts to have his withdrawal levels to be sustainable, and sure he can calculate if he wants to on average deplete his BTC holdings, which would mean withdrawing at a greater than 10% rate or if he would rather have some confidence that his BTC holdings are continuing to grow faster than his withdrawal rate by choosing a less than 10% per year withdrawal rate based on the 200-WMA valuation.