How many times do I have to repeat this:
always invest what you can afford to lose.
It's starting to look like a hype:
the point is you must invest what you can afford to lose mate
(...)
I don't even believe that this particular expression is contrary to the "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" statement. They are just two kinds of way of expressing a kind of personal assessment of your various personal variables, and the one above just ends up advocating a maxing out of the investment into bitcoin regarding what you can afford to lose.... and ends up coming off (and likely even playing out) as a more aggressive approach towards investing into bitcoin.
So, yeah, even with my ongoing suggestion that people should start out by investing 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid investible assets into bitcoin, which kind of assumes that they are starting out by hardly knowing shit about bitcoin, which is likely the case with a lot of people, even people who are already in bitcoin... but gosh, even before anyone gets to the stage where they should be actually putting money into bitcoin, they should be assessing their personal situation.. in terms of the variables that get repeated so often: cashflow, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, timeline, risk tolerance and skills, abilities and time to plan, learn and tweak which suggest reallocating from time to time and/or trading.
Perfect should not be the enemy of the good, either, so in that respect, there are a lot of people who do not really have any kind of handle exactly on their personal financial circumstances, so they can learn as they go, and sometimes just getting started with a low allocation to bitcoin that becomes more and more aggressive once they have made proper assessments of their personal variables...... so yeah, for example, being really young such as pre-20s might allow for a certain high level of aggressiveness with the knowledge that there will be time to recover from mistakes - but I still would not suggest gambling or getting into shitcoins absent some limited exposure and pretty clear entrance and exit strategies, and while bitcoin would remain a long term kind of investment that should, in itself, provide enough challenges that there should not really need to be any need to really be gambling with projects that may well end up exit scamming on your ass and then cause you to be in your 30s and starting over, rather than having had built a decent base by that time.
So yeah, aggressiveness in bitcoin could allow for various kinds of leveraging of debt or whatever so long as cashflow is sufficient to cover the servicing of the debt and emergency contingencies are accounted for, and I have frequently made sure that I had 6 months of cashflow minimum (using excel as a very solid way to keep track with customized ways of formulating various kinds of cashflow projections and other related matters, as well), but the more complex systems that are employed, there should be more cashflow projection for those kinds of situations rather than less (maybe even going out to 18 months to 24 months especially if you are servicing loans out that far or you have a variety of kinds of uncertain cashflows that come from business successes/failures and including that cashflows should be projected in conservative ways - especially if they have a lot of built in uncertainties).. otherwise gambling - rather than investing is taking place.
I added "2x per year" trend lines to his chart...
How are the lower and the upper lines chosen? You just pick a price starting point from January 2013? or are your starting points coming from earlier (even though Plan B is using January 2013 as the starting point for this particular chart)?
It looks like his 200-weeks graph follows that "100% a year" trend quite nicely.
It's just too many people started talking about "200% a year" lately, even Saylor,
I am wondering if a large number of these folks really mean 100% per year, even though they are saying 200% per year... I can see how the concepts could easily get mixed up because going up, on average of 100% per year is doubling every year, on average... but you could still see why people might think that their average of having the 100% at the beginning of the year has turned into 200% by the end of the year, so they see that what they had, on average, has doubled.. when looked at on a long enough time horizon.. surely it did not feel as if it were doubling in 2014 and 2015 (when caught in the middle) just like it did not feel as if it were doubling in 2018 or 2019 when caught in the middle, either.
which is annoying.
Are you annoyed by their seeming to get the numbers wrong? or are you annoyed because they are stealing your idea without giving proper credit?
Regarding the second concept, surely there is a lot of symbiosis in this space.. and sometimes any of us who might come across a kind of unique framing of an issue, it is likely that we are taking many aspects of the idea from other sources or making our own spin, but hardly are we deserving of individual credit.. which also seems to be part of the humbleness of Saylor. Even though Saylor might come across as a bit an arrogant prick, the fact of the matter is that he continuously proclaims that he was ONLY able to ramp up his knowledge and perspective(s) about bitcoin so quickly based on the various foundations of a variety of others in the space from podcasts and articles and sure some of the ideas come from various threads on reddit and this forum as well.. so surely some of us might not be getting proper credit sometimes even if we might have some of our own unique spins on some subjects, but I personally do not give too many shits if I get proper credit and if some of my ideas or framing of matters end up getting incorporated into some article.. and then I say.. hey? I was saying that 4 years ago.. or I saw that x, y or z member of the forum said that, so how could it be an original idea? We do see several media pieces that seem to be taken from some of the ideas that some of us bat around in the forum.. and sometimes those media pieces are pure crap as compared with the quality of ideas batted around in these here parts... or we may have already treated the issue several days earlier or even weeks before the ideas end up getting put into some article claiming an original perspective. blah blah blah.
just kidding, I was stunned by the length of your post
