I think the same as the idea you conveyed because even though we have a large discretionary fund we still need to make adjustments because in the discretionary fund there are some that we can fulfill for other things too so I think there is no need to do it in a hurry with all the funds for a long-term Bitcoin investment plan because we can still do it in an orderly manner meaning even though we don't immediately invest completely we always do it even though it's gradual but because of the order we do it it makes us healthier in thinking so that in the end we can manage our own time for accumulation based on the ideas and thoughts that we have but not many people do that especially those who have discretionary funds of course they think they can do it for accumulation with a long-term plan for Bitcoin investment.

This doesn't mean we don't want to accumulate but timing it right is more important when buying Bitcoin. Unless you have income that increases every week or month you should adjust the amount you accumulate to make it easier and more practical. This is one of the skills a person has to accumulate wisely without rushing.

Investing only what you can afford to lose does not mean that we want to lose the money. The real meaning is that even if that money is stuck our current lifestyle family security or emergency fund should not be affected. If you block your regular income source or necessary funds here then when the market goes down you will be forced to sell at a loss. There is no certainty or guarantee in the Bitcoin market. Bitcoin is 100% unpredictable. Due to history and its mathematical structure the chances of success here in the long term are very high. Only by doing DCA with discretionary income can it be possible to remain calm in the extreme fluctuations of the market. If there is a debt burden or pressure of necessary expenses on the head no one will be able to hold for 4-10 years.

Actually there's no need comparing holding $10 worth of Bitcoin weekly and trading $1000 daily because the dividend of holding Bitcoin has always spoken loudest. Trading $1000 daily can mean more losses per month than profit that it will bring compared to investing $10  per week that is more loaded for profit in the long run than the daily venture.
Now think of investing $1000 weekly to trading $1000 daily? The difference is just not comparable.

These are two very different styles, daily trading $1000 carries a very high risk of structural loss compared to DCA or long-term routine investing, allocating funds consistently is much safer than relying on high and aggressive trading frequency. If trading is $1000/day, it means the amount of money circulating is $30,000/month "if consistent every day". The pressure is clearly different, requiring skill, time, risk management, and most importantly, a strong mentality. Many traders have large turnovers but a thin net profit or even a negative profit due to one mistake. So, the comparison between the two is not comparable at all because their goals are different, one is building assets, while the other is looking for a daily salary from the market.

These examples of trading versus investing (and even the amounts) are a bit all over the place, and they are a bit retarded since they do not seem to be focused on trying to figure out something meaningful in terms of trying to compare similarities.

Let's try to figure out some middle ground to make our point.  Are we trying to make a point about size of the budget? Or are we trying to make a point about the difference between trading and investing?

We could have a person who has all of the various aspects of his cashflow figured out, and maybe in the end, he has $100 per week that he could invest into bitcoin.

Maybe the guy will invest with the money? or maybe he will trade? or maybe both?

He could put $50 into each, right?  He could continue to build up his bitcoin holdings with $50 every week, and he could add $50 to his trading account, and then maybe after a year, he can compare them. 

After a year, both of the accounts would have had received the same amount, and the investment account would be worth $2,600 and also accounting for if BTC had gone up or down in value during that time. 

The trading account might be all over the place in terms of potentially being up or down.

If the experiment were to last for 10 years, then each of the accounts would have had received $26k in value, and I would imagine the investing account to have become worth way more than the trading account, yet we cannot completely know in advance.  Historically it has been quite difficult for traders to beat investors, and the future is not necessarily capable of being known by the past results... yet guys can do what they like, and surely I would think that if we are in an investment thread, then it is quite likely that guys would be more inclined towards investing rather than trying to trade.

If there was a point trying to be made about size of the budget, then that seems to be a bit of a silly topic, since each of us has whatever budget we are able to get, and surely we may well have some goal to try to increase our income as much as we can, and we might even have goals to decrease our expenses. Yet, I have hardly any expectation that there is any advantage to be comparing folks with differing budgets, since we should be expecting that guys with larger budgets have more options than guys who have lower budgets.

A fixed amount can be a sort of a burden in scenarios where the investor had little discretionary income available for a certain period, then investment becomes a struggle when the fixed amount is above the discretionary income for that said period, a better approach would be a fixed percentage of your discretionary income, so as to synchronize with varying quantity of discretionary income available at certain periods and for the periods the discretionary income isn't available, the investor may not have to invest until it becomes available again.

I agree with him, going long-term in bitcoin has higher chances on profitability than short-term investment/trading that is always associated with those who are into bitcoin for quick profits, of course you cannot compare the profits acquired by those who settled for quick profits to those who held bitcoin for long-term even from a historical standpoint. Those who targeted quick profits exited the market too quickly and missed out on the good profits enjoyed by their counterparts who held on to bitcoin for longer, so long-term always has a higher potential for good profitability in bitcoin.

We are getting messy with those examples, since they mixed those different topics in the discussion. But actually the budget or sized by investors is not big deal, since I think what matter more is their approach.

If he really have that $100 fund each week, they can either choose those option that you mentioned, but I'd discourage them to do trades because maybe they might just their time and money dealing with volatile movement of the market. But if they follow those things what you have said then yeah the outcome might came out really different. Since after a decade of consistent buying or investing those people into this action could see the amazing growth of their portfolio, while those people engage on trading either got slow growth or quit because they got wiped out.

So its not actually all about which of those people have more money, but actually on their methods followed. Also about the difference of those strategies they are using. If we talk about investment especially on Bitcoin. Many people lean on long term because they already see those good effects achieved by those consistent long term investors compare to those people doing short term trades.

Yes, the DCA method is very great when it comes to Bitcoin investment because it allows us buy amount we can afford to sort out as a discrestionary income and it also give the privilege to accumulate regardless of the market phase or price because before now people use to ask and complain about the price of Bitcoin being too high or not going in the direction they want but when using the DCA method with a long term mindset, one don't need to worry about these things.

I think you're not understanding what it means to be aggressive in your buys. Aggressiveness has nothing to do with buying beyond your capacity and you don't necessarily need additional discretionary income to buy aggressively. Buying aggressively is putting in a bigger percentage of your discretionary income to buying Bitcoin. It's still done from the same discretionary income. Someone who used 70% of his discretionary income to buy Bitcoin is more aggressive than another who uses 50% of his discretionary income to buy Bitcoin. If an investor has finished building his backup funds, he can go as aggressive as using 70% of his discretionary income to keep buying Bitcoin while his emergency fund still remains intact.

The main problem is overaggressiveness which is buying Bitcoin beyond your discretionary income and it's not advised since there's every possibility the investor is using funds meant for his expenses as well in purchasing Bitcoin and this puts their portfolio in danger when the need to attend to those expenses arises.

I think that all parties who want to invest in Bitcoin still use the DCA strategy because this strategy is very easy for all groups, both those who are just starting out and also for those who are regular in accumulating the amount that is accumulated, it does not have to be a large amount, meaning that as long as we have the intention to start, of course, even with a small amount, we can invest in Bitcoin, so this is very helpful for those who sometimes have very limited income that they get, whether it is every week or so, with this strategy, I think it is very easy for anyone who wants to arrive without a benchmark to do in investing in Bitcoin.