Sure there are some folks who are actually saying that there is no risk in bitcoin, and some folks believe that if they DCA, then that takes out the risk..
So yeah, those kinds of representations of bitcoin or even using the DCA method would not be correct.
The more proper assertion would be to proclaim that the most that you could lose is 100% of what you invest into bitcoin, so you need to consider the possibility that you could lose 100%, and if you do not engage in leveraging behaviors, then the most that you are going to lose is 100% of what you invest, whether that is time, energy and/or value that you put into it.
On the other hand, bitcoin remains an asymmetric bet to the upside, and perhaps it is the best asymmetric bet that is currently widely available to almost anyone in the world. Even though there are ways to benefit indirectly from the existence of bitcoin, one of the ways to benefit directly is to invest into bitcoin, so if you don't invest into bitcoin, you are most likely not going to directly benefit from it.
Good luck in terms of deciding how much to invest into bitcoin, but surely it seems an overwhelming majority of the population don't have enough bitcoin, so the problem tends to be underinvestment rather then overinvestment, yet each of us has to decide for ourselves in regards to how aggressive that we are ready, wiiling and able to be without over doing it and recking ourselves.
Sure, we probably agree here. Just say no to shitcoins, and if you cannot resist investing into shitcoins, then limit such investment (if we can even call it that?) to less than 10% the size of your bitcoin investment, and the better thing is to figure out bitcoin first and get your strategy and your plan execution in order in regards to bitcoin prior to getting distracted into any shitcoins, even the ones that seem shiny and alluring.
In other words, fuck shitcoins and focus on bitcoin first prior to getting distracted.. but hey, if you cannot help yourself at least limit your exposure (of your time, energy and/or value) to such nonsense.
Even though you are correct, some folks get confused by the term "non-custodial," and yeah, "non-custodial" means the same as self-custodial, and I personally think it is much more clear to use the term self-custodial in order that fewer people will be confused.
I am not sure who came up with such dumb term "non-custodial" that is confusing as fuck, yet everyone should be able to figure out what "self-custodial" is.
When possible, it is better to use more clear language in order to lessen the likelihood of confusion, especially when newbies are sometimes trying to figure out what they need to do.. or what they need to learn about, yet they might not even understand the terms that are being used, especially when the terms are ambiguous and potentially purposefully meant to mislead people.
In regards to custodial wallets, it is likely better to describe those as third-party custodial in order to clarify that they are wallets in which someone else controls the keys or that there might not be certainty in terms of the exclusivity of the wallet.. such as exchanges and other services that people use and they do not hold the keys, so those wallets are called custodial wallets, yet for clarity they are third-party custodial, so that should emphasize the point that someone else has the keys (or potentially can block the person from being able to withdraw the money from those kinds of third party custodial wallets).
That is part of the confusion, since "custodial" does sound safe, but it should be made clear that custodial is the same as someone else holding your coins rather than you holding your own coins, which causes me to suggest that it is better to use more descriptive terms in order to describe custodial wallets as "third party custodial" as opposed to self-custodial. Self-custodial is more under your own control; however, there is a problem that people have to be responsible when using self-custodial wallets, since no one is going to save them if they lose their password. A third-party custodial may well provide recovery of wallet advantages, so sometimes there can be confusion about the advantages and disadvantages and the level of responsibility that a person might need to make sure that they have when they control their own private keys... and it can be scary for people to be their own bank and to be in charge of their own keys and that they have to make sure that they are able to recover their coins in case something goes wrong with their self-custodial wallet.
Fair enough. Yes. There are needs for balancing in regards to where you keep your coins and what kinds of trade offs there might be in terms of how much value you are keeping in any one location and whether or not you control the keys or if the keys are controlled by a third party, and also there are likely varying kinds of security trade-offs depending on what service you are using (if we are referring to a third-party custodian) versus what kinds of features might exist (including also security tradeoffs and even variance in ease of use) in regards to various self-custodial wallet solutions that are available.
You must be lost, cxtreenal. We are not talking about selling in this thread or trading, so the mere fact that some of us are talking about buying on the dip, does not mean that we are also talking about selling, since one of the main ideas of the thread attempting various ways to accumulate bitcoin and selling is not one that we are discussing in this thread.. nor trading... those are topics and/or techniques for other threads.