Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.
You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.
I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand?
Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you.
"Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory."
Did we get the real "BTCMILLIONAIRE" back as contrasted to that nutjob that we had posting under the same avatar a few months ago?
Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.
You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.
I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand?
Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you.
"Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory."
You're talking about a moving average that could only be established after a bunch of data points had been collected, which is the main thing I have an issue with. In order for something to be a "risk free investment", you're implying that somehow the trajectory could be established prior to it happening. I'm saying it couldn't. Only after the fact could it be demonstrated to be risk free. It just sounds like you ascribe to trend following, which is fine, but that doesn't negate the correlation between volatility and risk.
So what am I getting wrong?
You don't have to bother addressing the rest of the post if you don't want to.
Sure you can make a lot of points about volatility and risk, but in the end, I gathered that the main starting point that BTCMILLIONAIRE was attempting to make is that they are two different concepts. So, sure, discuss the fuck out of either or both concepts, but don't conflate them, nutildah, because it is way too fucking confusing and inaccurate to conflate those two different concepts that may or may not be related and are asset specific and also time-frame and context specific too.