A model, such as stock to flow is a reference point, and of course, it should be data driven, so the data may well inform it in terms of how much of a slope or a curve to project into the future based on data of actual performance.  If you completely poo poo the currently valid and relevant models, then you are likely detached from reality, and of course there is no problem to critique them or to proclaim which ways your assessments deviates from the models. On the other hand, some folks completely ignore what seem to be currently valid and relevant models because they want to proclaim their own detached from reality announcement that bitcoin is going to do x, y or z.. and I say: "what the fuck are you basing that on, besides pure wishful thinking?"

I see no reason to completely ignore stock to flow, four-year fractal and exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles, but I could see why someone might want to supplement such models with ideas  of elongation of the cycles, shifting of the curves or some other reasonable analysis that bounces ideas and data of the already existing credible model theories.. but complete rejections and assertion that those models are broken seem to be nearly complete pie in the sky bullshit that sometimes revolve around ego aspirations rather than attempts to really grapple with on-the-ground bitcoin price dynamics.


Everyone is somewhat affected by USD performance, whether you like it or not, and even if you might be somewhat detached from it.. USD performance seems to have world-wide tentacles.



I doubt that there is going to be a whole hell of a lot of a difference in terms of which persons and their appointees are in office.  There are some limitations in what they are going to be able to do, even if they were to want to create more responsible monetary policies.  Sure it is difficult to know whether some of the emergencies and crises are created on purpose, and surely bad motives can be ascribed to governments (and it is not even necessarily which party is in power) regarding  various desires that they have to create various control mechanisms which are likely NOT to the benefits of the citizens overall, but they seem to be motivated to devolve into various kinds of ways in which they want to control the population.. which just seems to be a bunch of bullshit.. that governments are suppose to be instruments of the public, but they have various tendencies to devolve into their own self-inspired mechanisms of wanting to control people and therefore to perpetuate systems that are not always seeming to be people empowering;.. its for your own good wear that mask and its for your own good take that injection and its for your own good put yourself into a system to be completely monitored for nearly all purposes (whether travel/movement or various kinds of ways that you spend your money or with whom you might associate).... Irritating for me to that governments are supposed to be instruments and tools to empower the people but seem to devolve into various kinds of control mechanisms to patronize the people in a variety of ways that become potentially worse with some of the technological mechanisms and we are hoping that bitcoin can attempt to either fix some of this or to put some of the power back into the people to create incentives that cause governments and governing bodies to be more responsive to the people rather than getting out of control and trying to overly control people.


I don't know, but it seems that we always are going to be better off when we attempt to create systems for ourselves to attempt to balance our exposures and to give ourselves more options individually.  For sure, we are going to have to have some exposure to dollars including making sure that our expenses are covered for a certain time into the future, and presumptively the vast majority of us are receiving our income in some kind of fiat that we have to balance the extent to which we hold that fiat, or some other stable currency and/or the more sound money of bitcoin.  We cannot either be keeping all of our value in bitcoin, but we likely do have to attempt to strike some kind of reasonable balance to maintain some kind of aggressive exposure to bitcoin because it does seem to be amongst the best places to keeps decent quantities of value to hedge against a lot of the clown show activities of a variety of the fiats, whether the dollar or otherwise, and surely other assets, such as property and equities, are being used storage of values when they are not meant to be used for such purposes.


This thread is not about the employment of those kinds of strategies, because we are talking about accumulation strategies that do not involve selling that ultimately involves a kind of gambling and taking of risks in terms of whether the price will drop and then you might be left with fewer BTC if the price does not drop.. so if you are just ongoingly buying BTC, then you are not taking the selling risk, and at the same time you are constantly accumulating BTC with the main risk being just considering how many BTC you consider buying at various price points, and if you might hold back buying in order to determine if a BIGGER price dip might come, perhaps? perhaps?

I never said it wasn’t. I was merely asking you if the S2F Model could continue to “predict Bitcoin’s path to price discovery with an accuracy close to 100% for the next 50 years”?


But at what point until we say that the model has been invalidated? Human psychology, and behavior has always influenced all markets. I believe no predictive model could project that.

I don't know how we would give any shits about if the model might be anywhere close to 100% valid for 50 years in the future, when I surely have never said either of those things.  For example, I said that it was currently amongst the strongest of models when accompanied by concepts of the 4-year fractal and the consideration of exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles.. so in that sense I am not even asserting such stock to flow model to be even close to 100% accurate even in the near future and so inferentially we likely would need to see how a variety of matters play out if we are using various models in the coming 50 years.. yet with any model, surely we can have a frame of reference that might take us out 50 years or more, but need to adapt along the way too... based on how new facts play out along the way.


It seems that I already addressed this, but maybe I can try to frame my answer in a different way?

I think that the model is currently valid and amongst the best of explainers, so I am not sure how much need there is going down potentially BIG ass assertions, and maybe you should come to your own assertions regarding what points might either make the model invalid or needing to be tweaked.   I see a whole hell of a lot of people in the last month or two wanting to completely throw out the model as if it does not mean anything so those kinds of determinations seem way too premature.. but whatever, do what you like. 

PlanB had already asserted that he expects that the model is setting forth an expectation of a $100k average price for this whole halvening period, and we are just short of half way through the period.  So if there were to be underperformance within the halvening period, or maybe when we get further down the road, we might see that $100k is not going to be met... but at this point, we are ONLY less than half way through the period, so why is there any kind of need to get too excited about invalidating the model.. and maybe some might use the model to project a lower expected average, and would reaching a $40k average?  or a $60k or a $80k average invalidate the model or just cause it to need to be tweaked in some way?  There may be some variance in thought on that, but still seems a bit premature when we are less than half way through this period and there is no real reason to conclude that we are not on track, even if there seems to currently be some underperformance in terms of expectations where the price should currently be or even underexpectations in the average price for the halvening period so far to be underperforming.   


I don't have any strong opinions on any of the macro-issues that you are mentioning pooya87, and I am not sure how many shits I give about details of how long various systems and reactions to systems are sustainable.  I do retain some assumptions that even though there is a lot of bad policies regarding unsound monetary powers, how money is used for sanctions (as you mentioned) and even variations in individual actors making matters better or worse, that the USD is going to remain strong for longer than we expect that it should be sustainable... and of course, there are all kinds of waves along the way, while at the same time value is going to continue to flow into bitcoin through all of this time.. and so how it all plays out is way beyond my paygrade or even any desires that I want to speculate upon.

On individual levels we largely continue to need to determine how to allocate our various risks, including how helpful we consider bitcoin to be as a hedge, and surely I don't plan to abandon several of my dollar based investments or even my holding of value in the dollar or various dollar based investments while projecting out my expenses and even my potential drawing from those kinds of accounts into the coming 10 years or longer.. and even though all of those accounts for me are tending to be less than 10% of my value because of bitcoin's ongoing higher performance levels... so whether they stay around 10% or they fluctuate between 5% and 25%, I am not really planning any radical measures in terms of feeling that my own hedgings are sufficiently good.. even though heavily skewed into bitcoin as already mentioned.

Of course, individuals who are just coming into bitcoin might need to consider their allocations matters a bit differently, and surely many of us bitcoiners consider that having a decently aggressive hedge in bitcoin is going to be helpful for a large number of potential future scenarios... Only in the past week or so, I had considered upgrading my recommendation to bitcoin newbies to consider their investment allocation into bitcoin to be anywhere between 1% and 25%, and I used to recommend 1% to 10%, but I don't have any problem to increase my recommendation, and I take absolutely no responsibility over the investment choices of others.. they have to be responsible for what they do an how much they choose to allocate, even though I am comfortable to say that I have increased my recommendation and you decide for yourself where you want to fall in the allocation spectrum.. if you are whimpy then 1% and if you are aggressive, then 25%, and of course, you are even free to go beyond what I am recommending as a starting range to consider.. and of course, the more anyone studies bitcoin, then s/he is no longer going to fall in the bitcoin newbie category.

I am having some troubles recognizing and appreciating why such a question might matter?  We have general guidelines about the future and we attempt to use the best models in front of us, and the more that we try to box in specifics that are far out into the future, then the more likely there are going to be known unknowns or unknowns that affect relevant facts and logic that change the outcomes.  In other words, we consider whatever we model that we feel to be most relevant for what dynamics that we have in front of us and we do the best that we can with what information that we have in front of us.

Of course, we have a halvening of the new bitcoin issued (or coming available into the system) every 4 years, so with the longer passage of time, the new bitcoin supply becomes less of the overall proportion of the whole bitcoin supply.... so surely that ongoing reduction of the new supply would be an issue that might cause some other model to become more applicable... so whatever models we are using will be relevant to the extent that we believe that they are informing us regarding things that we want to attempt to know or project.


I doubt that I am debating.  It seems that I said that if there are changes in the data and perhaps changes in the logic then the model might need to adapt to the new data and logic.  I don't see any whimsical changing of any models by PlanB, even though there are some folks who seem to have convoluted what he was saying in his floor model and his StocktoFlow model., and the floor model was way too specific and high.. but the floor model is not the same as stock to flow, even though the floor model was partly relying upon information in stock to flow, too.

So what is your deal right now, Wind_FURY?  Are you trying to figure out if we have dipped enough? or are you going to go back to recommending that folks stop buying bitcoin when they may well be served by continuing to DCA into bitcoin, especially if they do not really have a lot of confidence which way BTC prices might be going in the short term, but they have a long enough timeline that they are investing 4-10 years or more.

Your question had focused on way the fuck out there considerations of 50 years into the future.. why do we need to consider our own expectations about what various now existing BTC price prediction models might still be working so far out?

yeah, if we have a model (or models) currently that is applicable, we apply that model as far out as we reasonably can, but the closer the timeline of 4-10 years should be more important and relevant in terms of motivating our plannings, strategizing and actions.. and sure there are potentially extreme events that could happen that either change any model's trajectory, predictive powers or invalidate the model, but still should not justify throwing our hands up in the air with a sense of futility.  

Seems to me that we should be attempting to use the best tools that are in front of us instead of proclaiming them all to be potentially invalid 50 years into the future and then making up our own models that are not tethered to anything.

So, yeah, if we are using any model, and facts are changing in such a way that had not been anticipated by the model whether it is in the near-term or further out in the model's life then we either tweak the model as we go or throw it out and substitute with a better model(s) if such better model(s) then exist.

Sure it could be the case that we have some fairly convincing BTC price prediction models in place, and then some actual events put their validity and applicability into question, and then when end up invalidating our previous models (that we thought were going to be good and sufficient) potentially we could then end up being stuck with much inferior models.. and surely that is not the case currently.  

Right now, we have some pretty damned good models and stock to flow is amongst the best of the models in my opinion so long as it is coupled with the four-year fractal and exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles... and sure I am not even going to deny that there are some other minority factors that could also be brought into considering such BTC price dynamic expectations such as momentum, various changes in sentiment, and attempts at predicting black swans or accounting for various macro-governmental factors, but surely from my perspective those various other factors are likely a lot of noise as compared with: 1) stock to flow 2) four-year fractal and 3) exponential s-curve adoption based on network effects and Metcalfe principles.

 

Yes.. there are a lot of people who seem to easily get distracted, including yourself if you are buying into such nonsense.

Of course, you can give the model whatever weight you believe including completely discounting it (seemingly prematurely).... but do what you like.. and rely on whatever other voo doo baloney that you believe to be better indicators/descriptors regarding where we are, how we got here and where we might be going.  You might end up guessing correctly... good luck with that.


You can do what you like, and you can say what you like, and if you say stuff that seems to be untethered to reality, then you should expect that some people are going to question what you are saying.

Frequently, you yourself seem to be mischaracterizing even what the stock to flow model is saying and then you seem to persist with your mischaracterization and makes it appear that you are being purposeful in your own delusions.. so yeah do what you like, but sometimes it comes off as a wee bit disingenuous.

For example, if the model is anticipating a $100k average price for the 4 years after the halvening, and we are nearly two years into the halvening but the average might ONLY be $40k-ish, so either the model is under performing or it is invalid.. and sure there are guys like you who seem to want to say that the model is completely full of shit merely because it is underperforming some specific targets or even the mean of where it should be and also make some other claims about the model having no value, and seem to be even making misstatements about the level of certainty that the model is propounding.

Yeah.. maybe the model is wrong.. but still we are less than 2 years into this halvening period.. so there is another two years to see how the whole 4 year period after the halvening plays out and to verify if the model ends up underperforming.. and if so whether such underperformance is enough to invalidate the model or would it be better to tweak the model.. to account for the underperformance.. maybe even shift the curve downward if that might help to make the data more in line and which could even cause some need to adjust the theory and the math that is involved..

You seem to believe that tweaking the model in order to account for data, including if the curves of the model or the math might end up getting changed would be cheating.. which seems to be a lack of understanding regarding how good faith efforts are made when attempting to analyze these kinds of matters..   Even if models are tweaked, they can also be reviewed for their earlier iterations and how they might have gotten changed over the years and whether those changes might end up having had been substantially and meaningfully changing the model in such a way that is not "true science" in the event we are striving for "true science" and sure, there could be differences in opinions about methodologies or all kinds of ways to criticize how much weight to give to any model including ones that you might propose to be better models... or if you believe that the amount of tweaking of any model is substantially changing its original vision to cause such model to be "unscientific," so therefor you prefer to find some better model to help you to make better projections about how the BTC is likely to perform into the future.


No one is saying that.  If you are making a variety of valid criticisms, then that could be helpful.  

If you are devolving into your own absolutism interpretations, then that could end up coming off as misleading, when you merely proclaim that other people believe the model is broken, and some of those folks seem to be mixing up stock to flow and the floor model.. which are two different models and of course, the floor model had been shown to be quite wrong regarding November and December numbers of $98k and $135k respectively, especially since PlanB pronounced such specific floor number expectation numbers that quite largely underperformed his assertions.. as we know the actual BTC price at the end of November and the end of December was in the ballpark of $57k and $48k respectively.

In the end, everyone is free to decide how much weight to give to any model (if any), and surely each of us may well decide aspects of our own BTC investment strategies based on these kinds of factors. Seems to me that anyone who overly assigns specifics is setting themselves up for failures in various ways.. so if any of us are prepared for a variety of scenarios, we can also assign weight to a variety of models that we consider to be valid without expecting even that the models might require some kind of specific performance into the future that may or may not end up happening... and I have difficulties understanding how any BTC price performance model would have been wrong regarding specifics, if in September 2020 we had been prepared for either BTC prices to go down or to go UP, so our preparation for UP would have been a good thing because we would have gotten something like a 6.5x to 6.9x appreciation in the value of our BTC holdings - even though some folks might proclaim that they are depressed because right now we are only about 4.2x to 4.4x positive, when they thought that we would have been more than 10x positive by now... and I would blame people for putting themselves into too high of expectations rather than blaming the model.. but hey, Wind_FURY... you do you.. if you want to whine and complain that the model mislead you regarding your level of richie.. then that seems to be on you (and people with seemingly similar sentiments) more than anything.

By the way, I am personally prepared for BTC prices that could end this cycle within this calendar year as high as supra $1.5 million** .. so I am psychologically and financially prepared for such an outrageous price performance to happen.. while at the same time I am prepared for the bottom to go down to the 208-week moving average which is currently around $19k, and sometimes the BTC price will dip below the 208-week moving average for even as long as a few weeks.  

**If you want, you can look at my as of December 16 projection of BTC price probabilities and my expectations of the 208-week moving average trajectory, including number of coins to reach entry-level fuck you status.

I feel that I am financially and psychologically prepared for either extreme, even though I expect actual BTC price performance for this calendar year to play out at various points between the extremes, and surely in my own contemplation of the matter, the BTC price points that end up getting hit between the extremes that could end up happening are not assigned equal probabilities of happening, even though in the end, when we get through this whole calendar year, a certain set of events will have happened, even though at this particular time, a variety of scenarios are projected with varying probability levels... only one scenario will end up playing out and that is currently unknown but based on a whole bunch of probabilities of various events and factors.  Some events/factors are known, unknown and unknowable unknowns.. but by the end of the calendar year, they will all become known, and the past will be in place, and we will just be in a similar place as we are now in terms of attempting to assign new probabilities to the next calendar year (to the extent any of it matters in terms of tweaking our own planning and carrying out of strategies).

This has been mentioned several times, and shows both your lack of interaction (just spouting out your own talking points over and over), and your not even understanding what the fuck you are talking about..

Maybe I should attempt one more time.  Not for you, but because this is a public thread.

PlanB has at least three models.  One is stock to flow that is ONLY about bitcoin, the other is stock to flow that also incorporates other assets and the third is his floor model.  His floor model predicted $98k for November and $135k for December as floor prices, and they were obviously wrong.

Stock to flow has a means price of $100k for the 4 years after the halvening.  We are less than two years into the halvening period, and probably the means price is around $40k at this time.




Probably I answered this question several times, but for the sake of some kind of redundant clarity, we likely should watch how the remainder of this four year period goes.. and sure at some point we might end up seeing that  BTC prices are not even close to the $100k mean or maybe some other reasonable mean that might be incorporated.  I find no need to talk about hypotheticals that would cause me to give less credibility to the model, even though there likely would be various kinds of underperformance over this cycle that might cause it or even over a couple of cycles into the future, if we might have trouble theorizing any kind of cycle and there are better explanations for what is happening in terms of the BTC price dynamics.


You do what you like in terms of what you believe to be sound ways of thinking about matters or what you seem to be credible sources or how much weight to give to sources of information, whether those are facts, logic, conclusions or some ways of considering the combination of those matters.... Ongoingly, you have seemed to get easily distracted into areas of questionable relevance.. but whatever... you do you.

I never said that we follow that model or any other model without attempting to grapple with its meaning and context.  Also, I never said that the parameters of the model might become invalidated... I don't even claim to understand exactly what are all the parameters of the model including some of the underlying mathematical assumptions regarding the projection of BTC price curves into the future.

I have surely said that currently we have a valid and insightful model front of us, and I have acknowledged that any of us can give the model whatever weight that we want, including ignoring it at your peril, if that is what you choose.  

If you choose to NOT give the model any weight and to poo poo what it is saying, then you have a right to live in a fantasy, and it seems to me that you are ignoring a presentation of facts and logic that is right in front of you.  

Another thing is accounting for the stock to flow model does not require you to agree with all of the conclusions of others who are accounting for that same model, whether that is PlanB, me or someone else, and furthermore certain BTC price dynamics could pass such as the price moving within a range for a certain period of time that causes you to read the model differently from someone else.

Let's say for example, PlanB is suggesting that even if it appears that we are off course from the expected price average of the model, which from his view would be $100k for the whole 4-year halvening period from May 2020 until March 2024 (or whenever the halvening period ends up ending), he believes that we are still sufficiently on target to reach $100k within this 4-year period, and maybe someone else (hypothetical person 2) believes that it is more likely that this 4-year halvening period is only going to reach $80k  for the average price for the period, and still someone else (hypothetical person 3) believes that it is more likely that we are going to reach $60k for the halvening period.. and each one of these different hypothetical persons could assert that the S2F model should be accounted for and tweaked in order to show why their interpretation of the S2F model is valid and consistent with bitcoin's history.

In other words, maybe you are trying to assign way the hell too much certainty into what you believe the stock to flow model is saying.  You just make shit up about what you believe the model to be saying and you poo poo it.

Any of us should realize that any model should already attempt to account for variance of the data that can take place within its parameters - especially when projecting out into the future....

Also, frequently a lot of the time, when regular people talk about any kinds of ideas about the future, there is a tendency to want to present future matters in terms of specific numbers rather than a range because we want to be more precise in what we are trying to say, but if we are trying to be more accurate that future is going to already acknowledge the existence variance and a range in terms of what are the various possible futures that could happen.  

PlanB is not unaware of the concept of variance in terms of projecting out into the future, and he already frequently talks about that kind of a variance dynamic in terms of a certain amount of expectation that actuality will vary from the mean, even while he is continuing to expect that the mean of $100k for this particular halvening period is going to be met in the subsequent 2 years by making up for the so far underperformance of the first two years, so that the total 4-year period will end up averaging out to his expectation of a $100k average price for the whole 4-year period.

Maybe you are not even wanting to project something like $60k for the whole 4-year period because right now we might be not even have a current average that is even quite up to $40k for the nearly two years that have passed so far, so you doubt that $60k is going to be achievable, and you also are inclined to throw out the whole model and make up some of your own nonsense that is not attached to anything besides your own pie in the sky and detached from reality whimsical ideas.,.

I have my doubts about whimsical ideas in terms of whether they help anyone to prepare for much of anything.. and sure you have been busy in poo pooing the whole time and believing that you are actually contributing something of possible value with your ongoing poo pooing.... Do what you like?  refuse to get value and insight out of an already existing comprehensive and credible model.. that's your choice to continue with your own whimsicalities rather than trying to grapple with and bound yourself to some kinds of acceptable and valid frameworks and parameters.

Huh?  Since when have I given any shits about you?

Largely my criticisms of you have to do with how you are criticizing the model and spouting out baloney... so in that sense, I am talking about your ideas not you.



I have already explained.  the model is correlated to data..  Of course, you do not have to agree with it, and you can give it little weight, but totally ignoring it or acting like it has no value seems to be quite detached from reality..

In the end, we are talking about various ways of framing BTC price movements where we have been, where we are at and from that, where we might be going.


Stock to flow model did not say that.  How many times does this need to be repeated?


You seem to be living in a fantasy.... and failing to even grapple with the topic that you are criticizing.  So in that regard, you are both living in a fantasy and even difficult to follow about what the fuck you are talking about.

By the way, the topic of this thread was supposed to be concerning buying the dip, so getting into discussion about where the BTC price might be going has something to do with attempting to figure out how much of a dip might be necessary before beginning to buy.... and yeah of course, if there is some credence that we might still be going up and the UP portion of this cycle is not yet over, then of course, then there would be both emphasis on continuing to buy the dip and surely that is part of the reason that the S2F model was relevant to the discussion in the first place.  Furthermore, it is not ONLY S2F that is conjecturing that the UP portion of this cycle is not yet over.

Nothing is guaranteed for sure, and each of us has to come to our own conclusions, and in that regard, people are going to arrive at differing conclusions regarding how much of a dip there might be coming in the near term (and is the bottom in) and then what strategies are best employed to prepare for future BTC prices.

Of course, there could be some crying if the BTC price goes down instead of up, but any of us should be prepared for either direction and be able to figure out what we are going to do and/or how we might talk to others about what they should do, in the event that they ask what we think about BTC.

I know in the past, you Wind_FURY have gone into silent mode when you don't know what to tell people, and my own philosophy has always been to tell people that if they do not have any BTC accounts or BTC, then to get the fuck started. 

Another thing is that for about two weeks we have been bouncing around in a correction zone of $39,559 to $45k (which would be more or less 35% to 41% down from the so far $69k top from November 9), and in recent times so much around $42k so not even in the high end of the correction zone, currently, so for sure if guys are buying on the dip, they may have already bought in these price ranges, but they still might have cash flow coming in with the passage of time, so sometimes there can be questions regarding whether to wait, buy now or even do some kind of combination... and this thread has never really been about selling...(especially in a correction zone), even though I know that sometimes people do likely end up engaging in that kind of conduct which can be quite disastrous to be selling in a pretty decently sized correction zone.. but peeps are going to peep.. in spite of potentially following the alternative suggestion which would be to HODL through it... if you don't buy more, then just HODL.

If you are repeating the dumb ideas of others, then you have to take responsibility for what you are saying.... Seems that my interaction is with you, and I am not interacting with Aaron Vanwirdum.. .. you are the one who has both been making the bold and dumb statements and then subsequently mischaracterizing even what is going on by suggesting that PlanB's assertions about the floor model is the same as his assertions about stock to flow and also presuming that anyone gives too many shits about specifically what PlanB is saying on an ongoing basis in order to understand some of the concepts underlying the stock to flow model.

So your ongoing desires to keep talking about stock to flow is dead blah blah blah.. does not really seem to be progressing any kind of discussion in any kind of meaningful way... especially when you do not even seem to know what the fuck you are talking about so now you resort to saying "other smart people are saying it. blah blah blah."  So what.



Yes.. I see a line at the $100k level.. that does not mean that the price has to be on the line at a specific date.


So fucking what in regards to what PlanB was saying about being on schedule, and the model is not broken.. in spite of all your fantasies and the various fantasies of other supposed "smart people."


You are easily distracted.  If there is a mean that is expected by the model there should be deviance from the mean on both sides of the mean.. .. so yeah, the longer that the price is below the mean, the more likely that the mean would need to be shifted or maybe there is something else wrong with the model.. too early to call like I said about 10,000 times..



Seems to me.,. that you have some kind of difficulties to deal with matters for what they are rather than just exaggerating various topics and talking a lot of nonsense rather than really attempting to grapple with real concepts.. you cannot even stick to the topic of this thread.. sure I understand the future BTC price can affect how much any of us might consider there to actually be a dip or if more dip might be coming and also attempt to inform us about what we might do right now in terms of our own cash flow.. just buy blindly and regularly or attempt to time some buys or just give up and don't do anything.  If we are in BTC accumulation stage, it would be good to have some kind of a buying plan. whether that is on some kind of regular basis such as daily Weekly or some kinds of price targets, as I am expecting that there may have been a lot of folks who already bought at several times in these lower $40ks since the first time we got to lower $40ks was December 3, and then we been revisiting lower $40ks in the past two weeks-ish.