Jack Dorsey got a nice chunk of change from this Elon Musk buying Twitter ordeal.
https://fortune.com/2022/04/26/jack-dorsey-twitter-stock-ownership-net-worth-elon-musk/With an extra quarter billion dollars in his pocket suddenly falling out of the sky, there are those asking how much he's going to be putting into Bitcoin. I think it's a fair question given the amount of PR he does for Bitcoin. I'm hoping we hear a big 'put your money where your mouth is' announcement from Jack soon. Given his 11 billion dollar plus net worth and his love for Bitcoin, you'd expect him to own at least a billion dollars worth. Currently it's estimated he owns about 300 million dollars of BTC. That's less than 3% of his net worth. I'm guessing that would probably put him well below the average forum user here, and I'm guessing a majority of us don't have billions of dollars of wealth sitting around.
We need billionaires to have as strong of conviction as the rest of us to send the price up another leg. So far, even the most Bitcoin friendly billionaire still falls short.
You make some decent points, OgNasty.
For sure, I am
not going to shit on Jack because Jack has done a lot for bitcoin in terms of funding that he has done for it in a variety of ways and also the various bullish ways that he talks about bitcoin... so without shitting on Jack in any meaningful way, there are ways to question how billionnaires might be investing their money - and surely, sometimes there might be some lack of liquidity in terms of moving a lot of value around because they may well NOT be keeping a whole hell of a lot in cash - because even with Elon last week, there was a decent amount of speculation that he might not be able to come up with 60 billion or whatever it was without fucking around with his holdings in something like TESLA.
For my own position, I had considered myself decently well off when coming to bitcoin in late 2013, so I had at least of a modest cashflow from my various investments that I had made over the previous 20 years or so that I would not necessarily have to work, if I did not want to, and I also owned some property (like personal real estate), I had an investment in a private business, and I had a 401k plan that was diversified within the kinds of index funds that are offered within my particular plan, and some other equity funds that were mostly in index-like funds...
So I figured that when I got into bitcoin, I could be sustained by my various other investments, even if I engaged in a certain amount of juggling around, which meant diverting new funds into bitcoin... and only selling a few things - but to attempt to get up to 10% allocation in bitcoin.. which was NOT exactly a complete networth calculation but instead a way of creating a formula to figure out quasi-liquid evaluations for value on the various assets.. so for example the business and the property were a hell of a lot less liquid than the 401k and some other equity investment and the 401k had some decent amount of time-lock penalties though would have decent amounts of liquidity after the timelock or if it were to be transferred into some other kind of self-directed investment fund.
Within the concepts of
reallocation versus letting the winners ride, my punchline amount of initial investment into BTC ended up being around 13.5% by the end of 2015 - however, the subsequent exponential price rises in BTC between 2016 and present caused my BTC allocation to rise to around 88% in late 2017 but then drop back down to around 45% in the lows of the various drops and then now is largely back into the 90%s again based on current BTC price performance as well as some of my own management of holdings considerations that largely fall into a camp of NOT reallocating by letting my winners ride (which is BTC in this case) but still some maintenance strategies within the holdings in which BTC is sold as the price goes up and those proceeds are used to buy BTC as the price goes down, so in that regard there are both cash reserves that are dedicated towards BTC but they might also get pulled from the BTC system at some point too... so a kind of possible working cash that could end up getting pulled out upon individual discretion.
I don't necessarily want to get all judgmental on folks, so of course,
my personal recommendation has changed in recent times, so I am currently suggesting getting started with anywhere between 1% and 25% of your total investment portfolio to put into BTC, when I used to recommend between 1% and 10% as starting allocations into BTC considerations.. whether you are more bearish or bullish would show whether you are investing towards the bottom of the suggested range or towards the top or even if you were to go outside of the range in a kind of Michael Saylor style (which I do not recommend that style, even though it seems to work for him and of course, he has way more working capital, cashflow and even credibility to get access and negotiate various favorable debt instruments)...
Just as a reminder, in mid 2020, Saylor had bought around 17k BTC for himself, and then in about August, he had used about 75% of MSTRs cash reserves to buy bitcoin, and he had been increasing the employment of debt and equity ever since, and surely even if he is a bit of a bitcoin psycho, he also does have cash reserves coming in on a regular basis to both justify those levels of investments and also to sufficiently cover the servicing of any debts that he has entered into through MSTR.
Furthermore, I am also not going to get judgmental if a guy chooses to not let his winners ride and to reallocate along the way, so behaviors of choosing to reallocate or not surely could show bearishness or bullishness of the investors actions speaking louder than his words.
Of course, there is a difference between someone starting out with an investment portfolio already established and someone who does not have an investment portfolio already established. The already existing wealth could be reallocated or it can be that new investment cashflow is diverted into into bitcoin rather than into other investments.
The newbie normie who is starting without any already existing investment portfolio does not necessarily need to diversify into various investments from the start, and so that kind of a newbie normie investor might be strictly investing into bitcoin until his/her BTC investment holdings reachs a certain amount of his/her networth or a certain value amount and then diversifying at some later threshold points. Personally, I am not even sure if there is much value diversifying before an investment gets up to $50k or so, but surely the threshold level is going to vary and then how much to diversify after reaching the threshold amount is going to vary too... It might not make a whole hell of a lot of sense to have $10k invested into 5 different things, but maybe once reaching $50k, there might be some value in splitting that $50k into two parts and once that whole investment portfolio reaches $100k there might be some value in splitting it into 3, 4 or 5 parts.. Surely, there is discretion involved, but sometimes the diversification does not make a lot of sense when the value has not grown to very high levels, yet.... In other words, too much diversification could interfere with growth, and the portfolio might not yet be at a sufficient size in which material/meaningful benefits of safety, for example, are gotten out of diversifying.
Personally, I would speculate that
many billionaires should have more flexibility than the normie, but they may well NOT have as much flexibility as someone like Michael Saylor, and I would not even expect anyone to invest so heavily into bitcoin like Saylor has been doing.... So for sure there might need to be some assessments of what the Billionnaire is doing with his/her capital to figure out how much they should be putting into BTC on a personal treasuries basis...... Maybe there is some value in the billionnaire not unwinding very much of their positions in their other assets and putting that into bitcoin? There are likely billionnaires who are playing active roles in their companies (investments) and other billionnaires who are not really as active in their investments....
Maybe in the end, I would not want to get too judgmental regarding if certain billionnaires are true bitcoiner or not based merely on what percentage of their wealth that they have in bitcoin, and surely there would be a whole hell of a lot of movement in bitcoin's price if everyone gets the fuck off of zero and gets to some kind of 1% to 25% initial allocation into bitcoin, whether they are a billionnaire, millionaire, multi-millionnaire or some other classification of wealth (including normies who likely have only thousands of wealth rather than millions), and just sticking with the general prescription that a good starting point does still seem that everyone can still fit the same criteria to be anywhere between 1% and 25% allocated into bitcoin to get started and then see how that level of investment works for people within those various categories and of course within their own discretion (except those no coiner and under-coiner fucks should not have any discretion regarding whether to get the fuck off of zero.. no need to repeat that command, right?).,.
For sure, I would not be calling Jack a non-bitcoiner or not sufficiently committed to bitcoin, and so other factors would be determining how their investment into bitcoin goes (because just through time, the percentage allocated in bitcoin should go up with bitcoin's likely ongoing price appreciation relative to other assets/investments) and also determine if they are within the camp of just letting their winners (BTC in this case) ride or reallocating their winners from time to time?
