If you follow such a strategy, say, deciding to keep a balance of 50% btc and 50% fiat, the first obvious question (that you answered now) is "on which interval should I execute trades?".
You say during volatile time you trade daily, but that's only a partial answer: on a volatile day, price can wildly swing up and down, unrelated to where it will end up finally.. If you would execute your strategy on each of those swings, you'd be broke, because each time you lose some value to fees and slippage. But you say that much in your own post.
So in reality you will probably set yourself some limits, e.g. "if price continues to fall throughout the day, I buy at the end of the day", or something like that. You use your intuition.
My claim is: you're basically following a simplified and intuition based version of an algorithmic trend following method, for example like the one described in
Goomboo's thread. (yes, they're not identical strategies, for example the entry/exit points of both strategies are different, but they are principally related: they both wait for trends to manifest, and then attempt to sell higher than the point at which you bought, and vice versa.)
I'm not saying everyone should use an average crossover method like the one described in Goomboo's thread, but my point is, if you use a fixed allocation percentage strategy, you're almost half-way there to use TA to guide your trading. The only difference is that, instead of looking at derived indicators, you're basing your trading decisions on the price directly, filling in the blanks with your intuition.
Nothing wrong with that, but my point is, it's not fundamentally different from using a more algorithmic method, which might have the additional advantage to reduce the influence your emotions have on your trading.
I studied Gomboo his crossover trendfollowing style of trading. I see many big differences with a fixed allocation strategy, even if you exclude the speculation part:
- Like a buy and hold, trendfollowing will not sell as it goes up. Fixed allocation will force you to sell as it goes up. Profit is therefore lower with a fixed allocation as long as it continues to go up.
- Like a buy and hold, trendfollowing did not sell anything on the high and when it starts crashing will also give you large losses. Because you sold with a fixed allocation as it went up, you now have a smaller exposure and hence less losses as it starts crashing. You are also forced to start buying again now and since crashes generally go fast you end up buying considerably lower than the last prices you've sold.
- Whipsaws are the weak point of trendfollowing and can destroy your capital. Buy and holders don't care for whipsaws, and fixed allocation actually makes money with whipsaws.
Obviously with the current price of $140, and the general strong upward move, a buy and hold has been and most likely will continue to be, in the long term, more profitable than trendfollowing and fixed allocation.
However, the risk exposure is immense, and the volatility enormous, leading to most people sooner or later giving up on buy and hold on the worst moments. Trendfollowing does not solve this. The risk exposure is also enormous on highs as you don't sell a single coin and the losses also disastrous once it starts crashing. And eventhough it is true that trendfollowing will stop you out and avoid you losing everything if bitcoin continues to go down. It is also true that if bitcoin whipsaws for some years giving many false signals trendfollowing will fail due to the many small losses whereas buy and hold not. Many people will give up on trendfollowing likely when they lost considerable capital due to whipsaws and the market is close to finally taking a direction. I would agree though that chances are much higher for bitcoin to not whipsaw for years but take a direction.
However, in contrast to trendfollowing, fixed allocation does indeed solve the enormous risk exposure and volatility problems a buy and hold has. By selling as it goes up and buying as it goes down your exposure remains limited and the volatility of the up and down move is less. It is true however that a fixed allocation will also fail if bitcoin fails because you continue to buy more coins as it goes down. Therefore a fixed allocation strategy also needs a limit where you stop buying more coins. For me that limit is around $30 as a fall below that indicates for me that bitcoin might fail. And if the price would exceed new highs of $266 the coming months I will also stop selling as indeed, although chances are low, a black swan may take bitcoin to $1000 in no time too, in which case a fixed allocation would be very painful too.
It remains speculation, and every strategy will sooner or later fail to perform. Be that buy and hold, trendfollowing, or fixed allocation. When chances are high for it to go up strongly, a buy and hold is the best. When chances are high for it to correct strongly or whipsaw for a while, a fixed allocation is best. And when chances are high it will fail completely trendfollowing is the best so that you are out completely.
And every strategy fits a certain personality. I cannot bear to sell an investment that I believe is priced very cheaply as trendfollowing forces you to do. I rather stop buying more and see it go to zero. So for me I prefer to switch between fixed allocation and buy and hold but like to use
trendfollowing crossovers (edit: I use historical price analyses) to decide when