First, just to stay somewhat on topic, I am also saddened by eXch's decision to shut down their services, even though surely individuals likely feel persecution pressures when such persecutions seem to be taking place, and there are likely difficulties maintaining decently good OpSec, even when following the better of available practices...
So then from a user's perspective, it may well take several years for users to start to feel more and more comfortable with somewhat decentralized exchanges and/or the tools that they provide. and also perhaps other reputable members of this forum vouching for the services and/or perhaps a track record of nobody getting rug pulled and/or locked out under questionable circumstances regarding the behavior of the exchange.
What as was not clear about this announcement made by eXch is that they will 'eXch will officially shutdown its operations ' but also that eXch will "Starting from the date of the merger with a new management team this month" . So, looks like the operation won't shutdown, eXch will still somehow operate under different guidance.
Let's hope for the best.
Even though I did not read the announcement in such way, sure, it could be the case that some variation of the same (or similar) service might continue to exist, and surely there may well be some advantage for them to potentially figure out ways to break into smaller services - and surely they have some value in the name brand that they have built, so even if they tried to disconnect from their past name, there would likely be elements of trust foe anyone to move to some other service and to not be sure if the newer operation retains similar levels of integrity. I also would imagine that there might be some aspects of their software that could be open source, yet there might also be some aspects that are not open source, yet of course, frequently when guys are concerned about being rug pulled, they might not be as concerned about the software that is being run, but instead who is behind the software, so surely creating more open source aspects does make it more difficult to figure out who is running the service, and the value likely comes from having a certain level of consistency in terms of our considering that whatever service that we might be using, would be run with not-stealing-our-coins integrity.
I also might have some of my own contradictions (or at least internal tensions in my own ideas of balancing) since I personally consider that a person cannot really be over invested in (or over allocated to) bitcoin until his bitcoin are worth at least 10x his income/expenses in accordance with the 200-WMA... so in that sense, a person who wants to have a
$80k per year income, right now he would need to have at least 17.42 BTC in his holdings.. so then if he has more than 17.42 BTC, then he might start to feel a little bit overallocated.. but perhaps he needs to get around 10% higher than his threshold target bTC allocation level to actually start to feel overallocated.. so in the case of the current 17.42 threshold allocation, then maybe something like 19.162 BTC would be overallocated in bitcoin at this time (which is 17.42 BTC + 1.742 BTC).
Overallocated would be certainly a better word for what I meant. You are talking about having at least 1.5mi dollars 100% in BTC, which is certainly a lot if that is all money available. I don't think 100% btc allocation is optimal for any portfolio.
There also good other opportunities out there, from metals to equities (like nvdia, etf, etc) which also have a very good performance and even lower risk in some situations.
Surely, even though we buy and sell bitcoin at spot prices, I personally try to not let BTC spot value prices influence the extent to which I might feel over or under allocated in my bitcoin investment, since spot prices tend to be so fickle, and surely at any point in time, the BTC prices may well end up going back to bottom prices (such as at or around 200-WMA prices). Surely, any amount of bitcoin that might be sold at 25% or more above the 200-WMA is receiving a certain amount of surplus value so we might feel good to be able to shave off more BTC when the amount of surplus value that we get is quite a bit higher, and surely historically, we have seen surplus values (meaning BTC spot prices) that have been 10x to 20x higher than the 200-WMA.. and so right now in this particular cycle, even dating back to our uppity price moves starting in late 2022 or early 2023, so far we have ONLY gotten
BTC spot prices that are around 145% higher than the 200-WMA, and surely there can be some feelings to shave off a bit of BTC for those feeling over-allocated and perhaps allocate some of that value into other investments, yet surely I would not discount bitcoin's ability to at least get into the 4x to 8x surplus values over the 200-WMA.. yet at the same time, we cannot count on those kinds of price moves taking place... yet sometimes if we are already in a position that we are feeling overallocated in bitcoin, then we sometimes might be trying to time a bit of these kinds of Upwards BTC price moves.
Of course, when I specifically am establishing what I consider to be bare minimum quantity of BTC for the valuation, I am using the 200-WMA, so then based on how many BTC that you have accumulated, from my point of view you would be able to sustainably (and perpetually) be able to withdraw 10% of the dollar value of that so long as the BTC spot price remains at least 25% higher than the 200-WMA. Of course, guys can have their own formulas, and sometimes if there is a bit of uncertainty, it would not hurt to have at least 10% more bitcoin than the amount that you consider to be the threshold level of bitcoin needed for your withdrawal formula to work.
By the way, even though I understand that eXch and similar services (or maybe not so similar services) might be in a way better position to facilitate the exchange of digital forms (derivatives) of various kinds of asset classes, it still can be difficult to get excited about holding digital representations and to have confidence that those assets are not being overly manipulated in one way or another, and even with gold, i doubt that physically owning it completely resolves the extent to which it is, has been, and likely will continue to be manipulated, yet if a lot of the gold market comes crashing down due to various kinds of manipulation, then in those cases, it would seem that the physical would be more valuable, even though bitcoin teaches us (and you also admit the burden) that gold's physicality contributes to various ways that it is likely less valuable than bitcoin, whether it is the verifiability, the divisibility, or the various burdens of either storing it and/or transporting it, which becomes even more cumbersome if we might start to talk about $10s of thousands of value... and sure, perhaps nothing wrong with getting some price exposure while keeping overwhelming majorities of the value in bitcoin rather than various inferior investments.
I know that there can be difficulties balancing, yet I had never suggested keeping 100% value in bitcoin, even though very beginner investors might ONLY have bitcoin and cash for quite a few years until it might become justifiable to start to diversify. I see little to no value in diversifying right from the start of investing into bitcoin, and especially we should know that some guys might ONLY be able to build up their investments by $10 to $100 per week and the lower on that price range, then the less sense it makes to be diluting our investments, but instead we likely should be concentrating on getting our bitcoin to at least some kind of a meaningful size before we might even consider diversification to be warranted.. whether that is the investment of 1 years worth of income into bitcoin or some other threshold amount that a guy might consider triggers his concerns that some further diversification beyond bitcoin and cash (or cash equivalents) has become warranted.
Also if we are investing into bitcoin from out discretionary funds, and maybe we are able to put 10% of our income aside for sustainable periods, even with that rate of investment, it could take such person 10 years to merely invest one year's worth of income into bitcoin..so it can take beginner investors a whole hell of a lot of time, just to get to a point where diversification beyond bitcoin and cash starts to seem justifiable.. and sure historically, with bitcoin have been spoiled by its appreciations, so even a person investing as low as 10% per year going back 10 years, with bitcoin, he would have had ended up having way more than 1 year's income. In bitcoin, he likely would have had been able to reach something close to fuck you status in that period of time, meaning his holdings (even valuating them with the 200-WMA valuation) would likely have had reached more than 10x the size of his income/expenses.
I will just give an example to make my point. A guy who might have had a $52k income would invest $100 per week to invest $5,200 per year and $52k after 10 years (a whole year of his income), and so in bitcoin,
he would have had accumulated right around 29.5 BTC. .so in that sense he would have had been way beyond his own salary and ability to live off of the BTC at his existing salary rate.
Of course, past performance does not guarantee future results, yet each of us still might figure ways to focus on our bitcoin accumulation in order to get to the amounts that we need, and surely even right now, I would suggest that a guys who wants to substitute a
$52k salary per year from his bitcoin investment, then I would suggest that right now he would need at least 11.325 bitcoin in order to start to withdraw at that rate...so any guy with a $52k salary accumulating BTC at $100 per week (10% of his salary) by now would have had achieved close to 3x his fuck you status or 3x his ability to completely replace the income that he had used to build up his bitcoin holdings at pace of having had invested 10% of his income into bitcoin.
I know that some guys have been in bitcoin for a cycle or even more and they fucked up in their BTC accumulation, so they may well have had started to accumulate bitcoin at 5% to 25% or some other rate, and maybe they started out more whimpily, but they became more aggressive later, and so it seems to me that if they continued to accumulate and they had quite a bit of passage of time (such as 1 or more cycles), then they likely are in a good place right now..and that will likely continue to be the case, even for guys who have not yet had accumulated BTC for a whole cycle and likely will continue to be the case even for guys just coming to bitcoin in very recent times.
Surely, I recognize my post is going astray, to the extent that even exchanging BTC in the process of accumulating might become an issue once a guy starts to have had built a decently good size bitcoin stash.
