Topic: Buy the DIP, and HODL! - page 496. (Read 123020 times)

At the moment, for all long-term investors, bitcoin has been a profitable investment, when I say long-term, I mean a period of 5-10 years. In the last cycle, the price has risen very well and those who bought 50k or more are now in losses, and they can lose money if they sell now, but they can also hold further and eventually get into profit in a new bull market. But the importance of the right time to buy is difficult to overestimate, this applies to any investment, you can’t buy on ATH and count on profit.

JayJuanGee you are right because even though the risk level is dependent on the allocation level and personal risk assessment,  that doesn't override the general risk that is available with bitcoin holding and since bitcoin can react in whatever direction it then means that bitcoin is naturally a high-risk investment and holding bitcoin for the long term or short term depending I the holder frame of mind and decision to should all be done having the risk in mind.

In some cases,  bitcoin is a none guaranteed investment and the success level of each bitcoin holder is depending on the individual approach to the general concept of bitcoin,  and how the holder decides to take profits or loses along the line without necessarily getting excited from the market in entirety.

It seems that I agree with everything in your post, lizarder.. except I am a wee bit confused by the points that you seem to be making at the beginning of this responsive paragraph.. and you seem to be suggesting that bitcoin does not have any risk so long as you allocate in such a way that is in accordance with your own situation - but still, I am bothered by the idea that bitcoin would not be a risk - even though I agree with the overall idea that the level of risk is largely a matter of allocation levels....

so for example, most of the longer term bitcoiners realize that bitcoin is almost completely a non-correlated asset, even though it sometimes will correlate with various other assets for short (and even seemingly relatively longer periods of time), but the essence of the matter remains that bitcoin is a new kind of a paradigm shifting asset class that is not correlated to existing asset classes, and part of the reason for its not correlation likely is due to its ongoing early stages of adoption that may well take 10 to 150 years or maybe even longer for it to become a mature asset class.

Part of my contention with your suggestion that bitcoin is never a risk, remains any scenario in which bitcoin might go to zero.. or even spiral to zero over 10 or 20 years... which are non-zero possibilities.. even if many of us consider such possibilities of bitcoin going to zero (or spiraling to zero) to be quite low probability situations... maybe in the fractions of a percentage type of assignment of probabilities, like perhaps less than a 0.01% odds or may even lower, though it becomes quite difficult to assign odds when we are getting into sub 1% territories and maybe not even being able to figure out all of the knowns and the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns...and not even saying that I have closely gone through such a process beyond relying on representations from others and also some of my own hunches rather than facts or informed theories/scenarios.

Don't be surprised why many people have a lot of money but don't invest in bitcoin, that's the same as assuming the presence of bitcoin is a disaster. The context of financial freedom is the way a person believes in the concept of an investment that does not reduce the value of its currency. Bitcoin has proven many times in its journey and when people take a role and are directly involved then people already know it, because without being involved in it people will never know how bitcoin's power is in maintaining the existence of the profit value that we get.

Forget about risk and when people walk according to the right process, then bitcoin is never a risk to invest. Price fluctuations are just a process of travel and we can avoid when setting long-term investment patterns and that makes everything riskier because someone comes to investing because they don't have knowledge. There are stages that we need to go through to make the investment bigger, the ways and strategies for each person may be different, but in essence, all of us make investments to make a profit, the size of the profit depends on the capital and how much bitcoin assets we have.

There are always pros and cons to anything we do, especially when it involves money in transit, but eventually everyone realizes that bitcoin is the best investment out there right now. Eventually people will realize that they have missed the best opportunity to preserve the value of their currency by worrying too much about investing in bitcoin.

So it seems to the case that anyone who is half way intelligent should be able to recognize and appreciate that bitcoin is an asset class that is not correlated to other asset classes; however, even half way intelligent people are either not spending enough time to actually look into bitcoin or they may well be mislead by various mainstream media accounts (garbage superficial misinformation) that is being spread about.. and it takes a certain level of "looking into the matter" maybe between 20 hours and 100 hours depending on the person, in order to really start to grock how bitcoin is differentiated (and therefore a new paradigm shifting discovery/invention) from nearly all other asset classes.. a kind of investors dream to have a non-correlated asset - even though still if people invest, they still have to figure out the allocation level that they would like to assign to bitcoin as compared to other assets that they hold (and for any prudent/reasonably informed person, the answer should not be zero).


They surely might not have had assigned an appropriate allocation level, so if the answer is to get off zero, but don't necessarily over do it (or you do not have to over do it), then the answer should attempt to lead people towards figuring out a level that is sufficiently enough for them, whether it is 1% or 25% or some where between, and if they are going outside of those bounds, then they likely need to have had studied even more.. but any beginner with 20 to 100 hours of study into bitcoin, should be able to figure out an allocation level that lands somewhere between 1% and 25% and then figure out how to tailor how to get there in regards to their own particular circumstances.

My suggestion tends to be to DCA once you establish your accumulation target level, but of course, you can also supplement DCA with buying on dips and lump sum investing.. which likely take a bit more knowledge than a more strict DCA approach... a more strict DCA approach would largely just entail figuring out your own budget to such a level that you are able to feel comfortable dedicating a certain level of cash flow on a regular basis, whether that is $100 per week, or $10 per week or some other amount and frequency that has been determined to be sufficiently acceptable as the person will likely also continue to learn while investing into bitcoin and likely pay more attention week after week if they are increasing in their stake into bitcoin, even if it might seem to be a kind of small amount (especially in the beginning weeks and even years but the ongoing investment into bitcoin may well start to add up with the passage of time)... and if these strategies are set with some semblances of moderation, then there should be no reason to be panicking about your investment or even viewing such investment as a "disaster" or a "calamity".

I am also surprised by those who consider Bitcoin a "disaster" or "calamity" because Bitcoin is not here to destroy but to be a differentiator in the context of giving everyone freedom to the economic system.
That's why I have the view that intelligent people who have the ability to think above average and have financial capabilities should be grateful for the presence of Bitcoin as a transparent new concept.

In learning there are stages where each stage has its own goals that are interrelated.
Regarding risk, we can say that every business person is familiar with overcoming or managing a risk.
IMO, those who consider Bitcoin to be a disaster are very good at hiding the truth.

It is difficult to know what is meant by considering bitcoin as a "disaster" or a "calamity" - since there are some folks who might not know how to consider their risk and/or to attempt to manage their exposure to an asset such as bitcoin in accordance with their own particular circumstances - because bitcoin could be a disaster/calamity for any of us if we end up over investing or even under investing.  If we overinvest and then we leave our bitcoin with third parties or we try to earn yield off of our bitcoin, we may well find ourselves with way less bitcoin than we thought that we had or that we have some or all of our bitcoin locked up (bankruptcy proceedings or whatever).

Of course, the under-investor may well not really know about bitcoin and is viewing bitcoin from the outside or even sometimes viewing various points that s/he could have gotten in and then gotten out and made a killing (in terms of dollars), and there could even be some recognition that those people who are holding bitcoin for long periods of time seem to have a lot more options based on their bitcoin having had gone up in value many times greater than the amount that had been investing, and even accounting for the rises in the cost of living, many of the longer term bitcoin holders are way better off than those people who had chosen not to invest into bitcoin.  It would be difficult to measure the progress from the outside like that, and even people who hold bitcoin will sometimes not be sure about how much to measure whether they are better off by holding bitcoin or not - and part of the difficulties can be that even longer term bitcoin HODLers might sometimes get caught up in more complicated (perhaps overly complicated) strategies of trading or even messing around with shitcoins.

It seems to me that we do not necessarily have to have any exactly straight-forward process in which we accumulate BTC, but we will be complicating matters if we consider selling as a mechanism to use in order to try to buy back more BTC, rather than merely focusing on accumulating through techniques of DCA, buying on dips and lump sum investing... so in the first few years, it might be difficult to measure if we are in profits (or how much we might be in profits), and being in profits is not even guaranteed, even after a few years; however, it does seem that the longer that we stick with accumulating BTC (without selling BTC - except maybe sell and replace if we might want to transact in BTC from time to time), then we should be able to more greatly see progress in our holdings and less fear about our bitcoin that would otherwise contribute towards us being afraid of our investment resulting in disaster or calamity.. which also could happen if we are investing more into bitcoin than we can afford to lose, then we will be contributing to our own additional stresses about our ongoing bitcoin investment (and hopefully continuing to build our bitcoin stack with the passage of time and privately securing our most, if not all of our BTC stash rather than holding it with third parties at any higher levels than de minimus or in small quantities for utility purposes).

Another thing is that if we continue to look at bitcoin with the passage of time, we can see that the bitcoin price bottoms continue to move up, and so yeah we can get mixed up with looking at bottoms and tops or even getting maniacally focused on tops (or when the next top might come), but we would likely be much better off to be considering how the bitcoin bottom continues to move up, even if sometimes it seems to take a decent amount of time for the bottom to move up, but looking at any long term price chart, we should be able to pick out dates (even annually any date) and then track such dates though time to see that the bottom of the bitcoin prices have continued to go up.. and even though that is not guaranteed, it does seem to be a much stronger measuring point in order to recognize that bitcoin is likely not nearly as disastrous or calamitous as some people might consider it to be..

Governments have tried their best in all ways to stop bitcoin adoption but they have never achieve any landmark because the more the launch those attacks the more the network remains stronger and the adoption continue to grow, others could learn from El-Savador's holding as well and how they have maintained their their holding decision over time and yet get the best result others can learn from, this is part of the reasons why we are all discussing about them being a reference point when discussing about bitcoin and holding it aside the other whales holders across the world like microstrategy.

Groups that might consider a disaster are those who are very interested in having Bitcoin in large quantities.
Usually people with such thoughts have better knowledge than us so they have their own way of being able to get assets that we consider a gift.

I just mention here that some people who consider the presence of Bitcoin as a disaster are government officials who are anti-Bitcoin, bankers who continue to voice that Bitcoin is not good as an investment asset and so on.
Those I mean as people who have more knowledge about the greatness of Bitcoin who want to collect as much as possible in their portfolio list.

It's all probably placed in as a kind of long term plan. The idea might be laughable to some people, but physical cash might disappear during the next two generations, and our "wealth" will be under the control of their digital financial system/CBDC, which also means that our freedom to transact will be in their mercy.

There has to be at least one truly decentralized network for censorship-resistant value transfer. Bitcoin is currently the best one. It has most of the liquidity, the largest adoption, and it's the most secure/has the highest settlement assurances.

Hey, I don't even dare to say this

So from this they began to worry and try to suppress bitcoin because for those who have an interest in regulating something in a country things like bitcoin will be a threat.
Indeed, for us as ordinary citizens, things like this can be used as an option so that we are not too bound by some conditions where we are like being regulated unconsciously but on the other hand for those who have this interest it will be a problem so that in this case of course there is a balance that they think must be maintained and with the presence of bitcoin they will become unbalanced.

Reasons like this are quite logical for those who will definitely continue to hinder bitcoin. Indeed, for us bitcoin can be said to be one of the gifts but for some people who have other interests this could be one of the calamities for them.

The Cabal, the Oligarchs, and the Banksters would also lose the psychological and philosophical context of the question, "What is money"?

Because if Bitcoin could be a better form of money, that means they lose control over what defines something as "money". They don't want that. They want to maintain this idea that "Money" is what the Central Bank issues and what the government allows its citizens to pay their taxes in.

I will align my comment with limit on the term gre tool for holding, this is true even though it is not necessarily straight in operation because to some, greed is a tool for tranny selfishness that often leads to loss, but for the fact and sake of language and communication, greed help those affected with high asset stashed and waiting for the right time and not minding how long there are willing patient's enough to wait it out and that is what make make an investor to be stable in purchasing more Bitcoin.

Most likely in this case it is fear because if you look at the current condition, the greater the adoption of bitcoin, the more the central bank loses control over monetary policy, which does not specifically mean that as bitcoin grows, their regulatory conditions within the central bank will be weaker so of course this will allow the government to worry about the control they have if it is weaker.
Indeed, for those of us who really want freedom and without connection with other parties it is good but certainly not with the government because that is what makes some countries including large countries not dare to take risks.
Even small countries like El Savador are risky but of course they clearly know the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages.

Greed is actually good to convince more people into HODLing Bitcoin.

 

But the more they get eductated about the protocol, its functions, its value proposition, etc then the faster they come to a realization that HODLing some amount of Bitcoin is an absolute necessity especially with where the modern financial system is going with CBDC.

To put it simply, "CBDC = Tyranny, Bitcoin = Freedom".

There will be people in the forum who will call you names, make you feel stupid, even call you a toxic maximalist for saying such things. Don't listen to those people. Because why design the network to be in such a way that its main value proposition is censorship-resistance if not to be a tool against tyranny?

Efforts to regulate cryptocurrencies continue. While this effort only may attack some shit coins and centralized exchanges, but that is not possible with Bitcoin. Because it is decentralized. Only Bitcoin investors can invest in crypto without such tension. No one can control it. However, those actions may be aimed at temporarily taking advantage of the market by highlighting the downsides of other coins.

So if you don't want to risk your hard earned money then you should definitely buy from the current dip of Bitcoin and hold it for your desired expectation.

Yes. Yes. You seem to know where the wind blows. For @Aanuoluwatofunmi it is true as you say not to be afraid to adopt BTC and do it for transactions and legal but I think many countries have not fully understood and are ready for this digital financial technology. Of course there will be large initial costs disbursed by the government at the beginning when this is implemented so that people are familiar in terms of use, although some are already proficient, for example in terms of depots, transfers and withdrawals to fiat.

Banning from the IMF will not have an impact on the crypto currency market, especially BItcoin,
because the biggest market for crypto market cap comes from this world,
moreover China has also allowed crypto currency trading, so there is nothing to worry about the IMF.

Why should some countries be afraid of government sanction on bitcoin as an investment or asset to hodl, what have they done to El-Savador that first adopt bitcoin as a legal tender, bitcoin has to be understood in the same perspective as the same money used for making payments because it's a legal and acceptable means, they cannot assume it to be an illicit currency just because they hodl or it's been volatile.

The statement that has been submitted by the International Monetary Fund IMF no longer mentions countries that have become pioneers in terms of adoption, but countries that are still hesitant to embrace this new financial technology are afraid of being penalized. So naturally. This is good news for a country that has ideals in that direction. Just look at the market response now BTC Up and yesterday BTC touched $ 31,431. If there is a small correction after that, it's normal to jump even higher. Just look at early January 2024. BTC Fly to The Moon.