Every. Single. Day.

It’s a personal decision based on risk tolerance, conviction, belief in the fundamentals and time preference in my opinion. My only recommendations are to decide on a weekly/biweekly/monthly allocation that you can afford to pretend doesn’t exist for 8-10 years, make sure your self custody and seed security is tight, and don’t get leveraged buying bitcoin with debt. Anything can happen, but I believe Bitcoin has the single biggest asymmetric upside potential of any asset any of us will see in our lifetimes.

To me it’s a measure (ratio) of how much one requires (at their current stage) of fiat revenue vs expenses. Solutions like Strike and Spritz Finance reduce the barriers to going 100% BTC. Yet some people’s lives and businesses can’t make the 100% leap yet so it has to be done in micro steps. Factors that affect me from going 100% BTC are: A. Family…wife isn’t 100% on board with BTC yet. B. Clients in our businesses aren’t ready to pay in BTC yet C. Due to our lawful structure, Strike won’t accept us as a customer D. Our local church doesn’t regularly accept “crypto” as a method of tithing So these factors together create a few more roadblocks for us to go 100% BTC. Our solution? We micro-step. As our BTC balance grows we will be able to rely on fiat less and less (as our Bitcoin will cover the difference) and thus increase the amount stored in BTC each period.

I’m not looking to completely abandon fiat, banks. My question/struggle is with allocation of investable assets, savings. If there is no second best, why diversify? That’s what Saylor is telling me on one shoulder. All of trad-fi is on my other shoulder shouting FUD.

I’m not a “all or nothing” guy. But I am a “put it on a FEW strong horses”. So I strategically diversify. That being said, in 2024 my trade portfolio (a hobby for me) would have been way better off sitting in BTC. So I’m beginning to see even in my own portfolio how the “there’s no second best” mantra is true. In short: wisdom demands prudence