...snip...
Of course, the action that any BTC investor should be considering should be based upon his or her own situation, and if s/he has already accumulated some BTC or is new to BTC. I always suggest to get some stake in BTC, similar to the person above (Lieldoryn) who was suggesting that people might want to establish a stake in BTC in case it goes up from the then price of $16k or whatever it was on that day. Of course, any person investing into BTC or any other asset after a 78x price appreciation over the previous 2 years, should have been considering their getting a stake with a bit of skepticism regarding how much of their funds to allocate at those prices. Of course, retrospectively, any price might seem ridiculous if the price ends up moving in considerable ways with the passage of time, so in any case, none of us are investing retrospectively. Instead we are investing based on the information we currently know and attempting to take a rational and reasonable approach to invest prospectively.
Sure some guys want to attempt to play around with guessing, but dollar cost averaging, HODLing and buying on dips have been tried and true methods through bitcoin's history, and even today, as I type, there is no real convincing evidence that changing to some other method of attempting to time and to play around would be prudent in terms of future BTC price performance expectations.
Do a search and replace of BTC with Bitcoin and I fully agree with this.
I am not sure what you are attempting to suggest because my above discussion attempts to focus ONLY on bitcoin, not the various shitcoins that have hijacked the bitcoin name and turned some of the searching efforts and overall discussions of the concept of bitcoin into a bunch of gobbledy-gook. There are a whole fucking lot of people who don't actually understand the difference between bitcoin and the various imitation coins or even other variations of shitcoins that have other names, such as ethereum and ripple, too.
Let me see if I can express this in another way. Long term Dollar cost averaging investing is ONLY going to work in the event that the underlying asset is ultimately trending upwards by the time that an investor chooses to start cashing out. If the underlying asset continues to trend downwardly, then even if the investor is getting more and more of the asset with the same amount of dollar input on a regular basis, that is not going to fare well when it comes time to attempting to cash out, in the event that the asset does not ultimately go up sufficiently enough in order that the value/price of the underlying asset surpasses the average cost per unit.
So dollar cost averaging should ONLY be used with assets in which the investor believes have an overall price trajectory that is upwards or some possible future opportunities that the price of the underlying asset would go up sufficiently enough that the investor would end up being in profits at the time of cashing out. Speculation of course, and some crypto assets have stronger fundamentals than others, and in my own opinion, there are not really any that have fundamentals that justify investing into them on a long term basis, like bitcoin has such strong fundamentals that tie into various network effects that are continuing to build on it, as well as the mere foundational fact that bitcoin was actually built in a way that is impervious to attacks (does not mean that attacks from government institutions, financial institutions or even from within cannot happen, but there is a certain level of resilience that is still playing out in bitcoin and no other coin offers, so far).
Personally, I do not assess any other asset in the crypto space, besides bitcoin, as being one that I, personally, would consider investing into, even if the asset has the word bitcoin in its name. Sure there can be pumpening opportunities with the various scam coin bitcoin imitations but I personally would not feel comfortable sleeping at night with any significant value invested into any of them. I understand that other people can come to assessments that differ from mine, and that is fine.
I still will argue that DCA practices are best applied to assets in which the investor has confidence in the longer term upwards price trajectory of such asset. I would also suggest that the investor is engaging in a different kind of practice (gambling or whatever) rather than DCAing, if the investor does not first attempt to honestly engage in an assessment his/her own perceptions of the long term fundamentals of the underlying assets (and presumably strong long term fundamentals should ultimately positively correlate to long term positive price performance of such asset(s), even if the shorter-term experiences a lot of negative or flat price performance).
Of course, making an assessment of the fundamentals of any asset is subjected to error, and sometimes any persons actual assessment of any asset could change over time. So, for example, if an investor allocates value into 5 different investments at time A, and considers the investment allocations to be prudently targeted at 40%, 20%, 20%, 15%, 5%, s/he might become more or less bullish on parts of the investment with the passage of time and changes in circumstances, and end up reallocating the assets based on such changes in assessments.
The change in the assessment might take an immediate turn that involves an immediate reallocation; however such change in assessment could still take 6 months to 18 months to establish such reallocation that would end up following a kind of DCA kind of approach to transitioning the values in a more incrementalist kind of approach - maybe ending in something like this at time B
33%, 25%, 18%, 16%, 8%. Even though the change from time A to time B might not seem like it is a very great change in the allocations, sometimes shifting around investments can be a pretty involved process, but still accomplish getting the investor in-line with his/her own feelings about the market in light of various other factors, including sometimes adding an investment or two from his/her holdings or removing one or two from the mix.
A lot of the tailoring would of course be attempted to be matched with the investors: cashflow, other investments, view on bitcoin as compared with other possible investments, timeline, risk tolerance, time and skills for managing portfolio and researching. There is, ultimately, not going to be any "perfect" way of investing, but any investor who attempts to approximate the calculations of allocations in a way that is most tailored to his/her own situation is going to be a lot closer in line with comfortability and better prepared to make future adjustments and tweakenings as warranted by his/her own discretion.