Re: Buy the DIP, and HODL!

There is a saying in our native language, from whatever you earn, keep some part for basic needs and save the rest for the future. Maybe one day you will fall ill and you will be able to remove your illness and lack and basic needs through savings. Exactly, I want to add something more to your words, because a daily wage earner earns some income. And he must keep some part of the income aside for the future, exactly what I want to say is that it is most important to connect those saved money with Bitcoin. Because the more you deposit in Bitcoin, the better you will be able to move forward economically, it is possible to achieve multiple benefits.

If you are a low-income person, you should not invest all your savings. Because as you mentioned, you need to save for the future, but if you invest all your savings, we know that if you invest in Bitcoin, you should hold it for a long time. Now if you invest all your savings, how will you get treatment if you get sick? So after meeting your needs with your income, you should not invest the entire amount, you should keep a fund for emergencies.

A low-income earner can also invest in Bitcoin, but it should not be done by putting all their savings at once. In fact, even a high-income earner should avoid investing all their income in Bitcoin. The simple and most comfortable way, especially for someone with a low income, is to use the DCA method. With DCA, you buy Bitcoin either weekly or monthly, depending on the amount you set aside for continuous investment. At the same time, investment should be done with discretionary income, money you have left after paying your other needs, so you won’t be forced to sell your holdings in difficult times.

That would depend on a few things like marital status, your age, financial stability, amount of savings, where the market is currently in the cycle, and a few more "concerns". But typically, if you have at least six months worth of expenses saved in your bank account, then you could invest the rest of your income.

But if you're single, with no responsibilities, and you see that Bitcoin's price is touching or under the 200-Weekly SMA, then it would be irresponsible NOT to withdraw all of your savings to buy Bitcoin.

I doubt that marital status has much bearing except to the extent to which you might need to consult regarding financial and/or other important life matters.. . but the fact that you are married or not seems almost irrelevant.

Personally, I haven't experienced such matters because I'm not married. But it would probably be safe to assume that a married man should be more careful with his finances now that he's making financial decisions for the both if them. UNLESS, he doesn't tell his wife about his Bitcoin investment.

Isn't the question regarding the extent to which a guy's income and/or expenses have become more complicated based on his life situation rather than trying to presume exactly the effect of being married versus being single? Of course, there can also be guys engaged in businesses, and some businesses are not very complicated or involved - maybe a couple of times a week the guy goes and sells some products (as a side business or maybe he teaches some skill that he has or works as a private consultant), yet there might be guys who have several employees and a variety of relations with vendors for products and/or services, and the more complicated the situation, then the more back up funds he probably needs to have and we don't even necessarily need to assume that his income is going to be so low that he is not able to invest, even though many businesses will be less profitable (and even fail) in their earlier years, so the point is more likely about complication of his finances and/or relationships rather than something like whether he is married or single.

I suppose I am not disagreeing with your point about being married bringing more potential complications, yet I am objecting how you described being married versus single in such a presumptive way as if a single person is still not going to have obligations merely because he is single. I don't necessarily disagree with you in regards to the extent to which some decision making might become more complicated with a spouse to the extent that there either might need to get input or at least at minimum the guy might have extra responsibilities in regards to parts of his income that would either go into the joint relationship and/or to support the wife.. and surely there could be situations in which a spouse brings extra income and/or potentially brings more income so the financial aspect is more of a benefit rather than a burden. Guys have to account for these matters, and we should not presume too much about them unless maybe describe our presumptions.

This here is a very important nuance that most people miss whenever they're making broad comparisons between being single and being married, as it concerns their finances. You're very correct with your thoughts and I completely agree that it's less about the individual's marital status, but more about the complexities of the individual's overall financial situation, which of course as we know can take many forms. Marriage can undoubtedly add some new layers of responsibility and obligations, but that doesn't in anyway imply someone who's not yet married doesn't also have these responsibilities and obligations too. Besides marriage and family, a single person could have other things that might as well demand so much from him, like his business, juggling employees and even the need to balance family responsibilities outside marriage.

So when thinking about financial needs, it makes more sense to think about it in terms of the level of entanglement the individual has, rather than just focusing on the binary aspect of being married or single. Some individuals keep their expenses and work relatively simple, like offering their own services or running a straightforward side business, which may not require so much or be so demanding, while some other individuals decide to take on a much larger ventures that demands ongoing commitment and of course safety nets. The folk with the more intertwined income sources and obligations have more need to hold more backup reserves regardless of their marital status.

And then again, you're also very correct to point out the fact that marriage does have the ability to reshape a person and the equation, and this comes in both directions. In one way, it could potentially complicate matters by introducing some sort of shared responsibilities and expectations, while also looking at it from the other angle, it could also bring stability or some additional income, which can potentially offset some burdens. The key takeaway from this, is to not just go with the assumption that being married automatically reduces one's financial freedom or that life is simpler for single person. Each of these situations uniquely comes with its own variables and the decisions people make about their finances should account for those specific realities and not marital or generic assumptions.