Also to mind off that signature campaigns arent permanent therefore its just dumb that you would really be that relying your living into that.
Yeah, I get the realities of my scenario as they'd probably play out in real life, including the fact that nobody's sure how long sig campaigns are going to exist. I'm not sure which one has been the longest-running, but Chipmixer has been doing theirs for well over a year now, right? And campaigns aren't what they used to be in terms of how much one could earn from them. It used to be that if you made 50 posts in a week for Chipmixer, you'd earn 0.0375
BTC, and they kept that rate right up to the point when that amount of bitcoin was way more than $300.
I don't even know what other campaigns pay. Do they come close to Chipmixer?
If we compare Chipmixer with other top campaigns on bitcointalk, then the pay rate differs by 1.5 times. But the main advantage that makes this campaign the leader in payouts is that you can make up to 50 posts per week. Then, as in the rest of the campaigns, basically, the weekly limit is 25 posts. This is what results in such a gap in remuneration from other campaigns.
I doubt that I have been the ONLY one who may have been somewhat fighting with the hypothetical that relies on a signature campaign as a source of income that could: 1) provide up to $300 per week of income on a fairly reliable basis, 2) could count on such income into the future and 3) could find 4 other guys who are able to generate similar levels of income (presumably from similar kinds of sources).
To some extent, maybe I even downplayed how much you, The Pharmacist, were wanting to focus on the reliability of the source of income as much as being able to find a place in which you (and perhaps 5 other similarly situated guys) could live comfortably off of that level of income.
So yes, in this latest post of yours, you suggest that if Chipmixer were to dry up, then would there be a back up signature campaign that is at a somewhat similar compensation level - and yeah, for someone like me, I neither give too many shits about earning income from such sig campaigns because I consider the amount to be too low and not really providing enough of an income cushion - except perhaps if you had happened to have been living in an area in which your costs were low enough that you would possibly have excess income.
I suppose that my battling with such scenario happens to deal with some level of importance that I have always placed on savings and creating various kinds of wealth cushions in order to be able to have options, so I have some difficulties accepting why anyone would want to limit themselves to such low level of income, especially in their younger years, and especially if they likely have additional income generating options.
Gosh there are no real skills in getting accepted into a signature campaign except maybe just keeping somewhat coherent and non-scammy and non-controversial posting techniques, so if all signature campaigns were to dry up, then there might be questions regarding how to make that same level of income (purportedly by working on or through the internet) without necessarily needing to have very many skills - and aren't those the kinds of questions that any quasi-educated 3rd world person would be asking, so the edge in being able to get those kinds of jobs would be just to have decently good English presentation skills? Is there a need for any subject-matter knowledge?
I guess I am having some difficulties relating if the focus of the question merely is about the extent to which something like a signature campaign income of $300 per week is sustainable... maybe I am a bit of a prude, even though I do somewhat agree with the idea of building enough savings so that you can generate a passive income (fuck the signature campaigns) so you would not necessarily have to rely upon outside sources of income in order to generate enough of an income from your prior investments that would rise to the level of being able to produce something like a $300 per week income ongoingly (and than to appreciate enough, as well to be able to account for possible(likely) increases in the cost of living)...
Historically, you would have to consider around a 4% withdrawal rate on any investment portfolio that you had built - so yeah, the amount of work that is involved to build such an investment portfolio may well be much above and beyond what you, , The Pharmacist, were wanting to do. Getting up to $400k invested would allow for a withdrawal rate of $16k per year ($400k * 4%).. which would be about $308 per week ($16k / 52).