I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down. The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.
The overall sentiment of your various posts seems to imply that there is some other better investment out there, rather than bitcoin, because in your framing, the various possible prospects for bitcoin are so dismal, no matter how it plays out.
Accordingly, why can't you come up with a decent formula in order to expedite your exiting of the bitcoin space to place (or diversify) your supposed bitcoin holdings in these so far non-specified "better" investments?
Accordingly, cashing out 10 BTC per week or some other more quick exit may be better for everyone, however many weeks that may take.
The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing. I may have made a fundamental miscalculation. This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.
Maybe you are correct? That is called growing pains. While BTC's market cap remains relatively small, and while there are only a limited number of exchanges that lead BTC's price movement, it does not take a whole hell-a-va lot of capital to push prices up, down or to hold them steady within a range (even if such manipulations are occurring at a bitcoin loss, such manipulations can be very profitable for stake holders of other institutional financial and even governmental entities who would like to keep bitcoin as small as they reasonable can accomplish for as long as they can reasonably accomplish).
What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings. Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings. Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance. At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive. What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened. 27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.
Yeah, right. Since you have supposedly been in bitcoin for so long (since 2011), you should have a little better abilities to zoom out a little bit and to understand the context a little better. But instead, you continuously frame this artificial frame to suggest a decline in bitcoin, such as going from $1150 to $502 to whatever other selective lower number you select, which is nearly full bullshit due to its selectivity and lack of meaningful context.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
Your error in your thinking is that you currently, again, seem to be talking your book, even though you are nearly continuously selectively presenting negative aspects of bitcoin in a naysayer manner (and no matter what you are going to find reasons to make up things and to selectively complain about bitcoin) and out of this world levels of speculation, rather than providing some more accurate and balanced analysis based on meaningful factors.. rather than fear mongering with speculation that is a hella-va-lot less likely.