Okay, well just so you know, your expression isn't clear and isn't commonly used in English, so you should probably expect future misunderstandings. You're referring to "bagholders" and "permabulls" (people who always believe price will rise and refuse to sell at a loss). "Marrying an asset" doesn't actually specify what side you're trading (long or short) so it's not a useful expression
I don't know about English (actually, there is a phrase about "marrying an asset, not a liability") but it is a well-established term or concept in trading (investing) meaning exactly what I put into it.
The phrase about "marrying an asset, not a liability" is literally about choosing a spouse. Maybe you could link to a source that explains the investing concept?
Yes, and I wholeheartedly concur with it. So is it common or what?
Regarding its use in investing or trading contexts, now I recall that I often met this expression in the commodities section of investing.com (in the crude oil part, more specifically). But as you were trying to search it on Google, now I'm seriously doubting that it is me who is to expect future misunderstandings. Maybe, you are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, both trading and English language wise? No need to get all defensive, just in case
I couldn't find anything on Google
Kidding aside, searching the forum would suffice:
As i said earlier, i love BTC (and most of my tiny investment is on BTC), but ppl really need to NOT MARRY AN ASSET
I bought BTC to sell it to make money not to marry with it like you guys
Read the news, watch the charts, don't marry your investment
I don't marry my tokens, I date them
As you can see, the meaning is pretty straightforward in trading and investment contexts. To me, it doesn't look like uncommon, either. Maybe, you should learn how to use the search button?
Either way, I don't marry my bitcoins, I date them