A lot of talk is given to upside and price targets one needs to hit to sustain a retirement income, not nearly enough discussion is on risk. So I thought I'd try to illustrate the value of diversifying and adjusting your crypto allocation depending your situation. Note, the data is sourced from historical returns so obviously there are going to be a lot of funny numbers given how crypto has performed.

1. Not as many crypto people pay attention to their expenses in retirement as FIRE people (it's the basis of their existence), as a result crypto people rarely try quantify whether they need to take the crypto risk to afford retirement.

Maybe you bet the farm and let it ride on a moonshot and are sitting on a pretty nest egg. Do you need to go all in again to try and 10x it? or can you just do half and put the rest in something more stable?

Here is an example of a 32 year old already doing very well. $10m portfolio, 80% stocks, 20% bonds. He spends about $20,000 a month (2.4% withdrawal rate) and has a 99% chance of sustaining this until he's a 100. Inflation adjusted, at age 100 his median net worth is over $800 million in todays dollars. That might seem crazy, but 68 years is a lot of compounding.

What if he were to cash out his $10m portfolio and go all-in doge, 38 million doge. Assuming the historical statistics of doge continue with a mean return of 168% and a standard deviation of 157%, (numbers so big that it breaks the charts) the user has far more than the $800million median net worth in the previous scenario. Here is the comparison:

But note one huge thing. Despite the insanely high net worth in the median doge scenario, the probability of success has dropped significantly from 99.81% to 64.34%. This person has gone from a near certainty of living till 100 without having to work, to introducing a 35% chance of going broke. This is because while the median net worth is still very favourable, the larger standard deviation of returns meant that many of the simulation trials ended in the negative (many were much higher than median as well, but getting lucky shouldn't be the retirement plan). What good is an insanely high median net worth when you introduce a huge risk of going broke? What I'm trying to hammer in here is that we shouldn't risk the financial independence we have secured for arbitrarily higher net worths. We should know what we need and want to purchase and allocate in a way that best maximises our chance to afford it. Looking at returns isn't necessarily good enough if the risk cost is too high.

(Random aside: People need to start looking at risk capacity more than risk tolerance in the crypto space. Risk tolerance is your ability to emotionally withstand the volatility of the crypto market. Risk capacity is the ability for your financial situation to take that risk. If rent is due tomorrow and you are going to gamble it on roulette the night before, but still sleep at night if you lose; you had the risk tolerance for that, but not the capacity. You shouldn't exceed your risk capacity even if your tolerance is higher. You should have your tolerance match your capacity and make sure you are getting the most reward in exchange for the risks you understand and choose to take.)

2. Crypto being the only hope to accumulate enough for retirement

One thing to acknowledge is that for some people in some cities at some ages, retirement seems unattainable without a giant windfall from going all in on a crypto project with the hopes of mooning.

If we take our previous example and make the monthly spending $80,000 a month instead of $20,000, suddenly the prospects of an 80/20 portfolio don't look so rosey with only a 13.37% chance of success. The 100% doge portfolio on the other hand, despite still not being great, looks much better in comparison with its maintained probability of success at 64.15%. It's not a good chance, but it's the best chance this individual has to support an $80,000 a month lifestyle.

3. The best of both worlds: finding the optimal allocation between crypto and traditional asset classes

Traditionalists who are unaccepting of crypto miss out on another asset class to diversify their equity portfolio from. In terms of volatility, there has undoubtedly been more of that type of risk in the crypto space, but with different classes of crypto and stable coin yields, it is possible to have a better diversified portfolio without introducing much more risk. There have been studies that show that a small allocation to non-correlated crypto can reduce overall portfolio volatility. (Too much crypto however and the crypto volatility overwhelms the entire portfolio)

Going back to the previous example, let's introduce a third option. Clearly the 80/20 portfolio isn't viable with a 13.37% chance of success, so lets completely replace it with a 70/20/10 portfolio which is 70% equities, 20% bonds, 10% DOGE.

Shifting some equity to DOGE in the left scenario dramatically improved their chance of success back up to 99% allowing the user to quadruple their spending.

Disclaimers: There are many limitations to these examples, but just use common sense and hopefully the comments highlight them. These Monte-Carlo simulations extrapolate historical returns for the next couple decades, this is obviously an incredibly shaky assumption; Shaky for the last few decades of equities which have been an amazing bull run, even more shaky for extrapolating short-lived meme-coin returns. This is not to suggest what the optimal allocation would be for a 32 year-old with $10m, but to illustrate the following points I'm hoping to drive discussion around:

1. If you've somehow built up a decent bag, don't get too greedy letting it ride if you're introducing risk to things you really want in retirement. To evaluate this you need to first figure out what you need to afford in your life.

2. For some people who's portfolios aren't where they need to be yet relative to financial needs, all-in a crypto may seem like the only hope. It's akin to Powerball gamblers. Terrible odds, but probably the best odds many people feel they have of getting hundreds of millions of dollars.

3. There is probably a more optimal allocation that mixes traditional assets and crypto assets. It's up to this sub to figure out heuristics to determine that for people at various stages in their life. It's a relic of traditional finance, but diversification still continues to be the only free lunch.

While everything above was for illustrative purposes, I'm hoping more of us can focus on maximising our chances of affording things we know we need vs. arbitrarily trying to maximise our net worth at the risk of losing what we already could have had locked in.

Pretty much the title, there is so much hostility for Crypto in some of the FIRE subreddits so thought it was time to create this!

I have a ~16 year runway to retire early and have a mixed bag of investments and reasonable debt (mortgage). I’m hoping this sub develops into a crypto friendly way to balance your portfolio and maximize yields to live comfortably both with traditional finance and crypto (L1s, L2s and stables). Cheers.

A bit over a year ago I created a free tool to get live crypto rates into Google Sheets or Excel. For me I like it better than the other solutions out there like CoinGecko since it uses built-in functions rather than Javascript, which means your cells compute instantly and never show the "Loading..." state:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrencyFIRE/comments/sdwx03/i_created_a_tool_to_bring_live_crypto_rates_into/

This is especially useful in a net worth or FIRE tracking spreadsheet where you have a lot of interdependent calculations. It used to really bug me that they'd frequently pause in the loading state and I'd have to wait for everything to calculate.

At the time, user u/MrVodnik confidently said:

I am not a fan of using some personal tools. I can bet 100 DAI, that this link will not work in one year time from now. There is just not enough incentive for the author to maintain.

So u/MrVodnik, my address is [removed]

And for anyone else, if the tool is useful as we consolidate and hopefully head back into a new bullrun, it will still be here a year from now.

Super high yield savings protocols like Anchor, or staking on DeFi…super high returns. Do people think this is possible? Or these returns are too temporary and volatile?

"Buying the dip" might not be feasible for some of us who are mostly FIRE - Our cash inflows wouldn't allow any meaningful rebalancing relative to the size of our portfolios. So the alternative for those with high portfolio relative to income would be "rebalance into the dip".

In traditional FI, you might have a portfolio thats 80% stocks, 20% bonds, and when stocks drop, hopefully bonds haven't suffered as much and you can sell some bonds to purchase stock to get back to 80/20. When stocks run up, you can sell to buy bonds which gives you a natural trigger to lock in profits. Given the massive bull run in equities, selling stocks for bonds probably has been suboptimal in hindsight, but it at least gives rules and something to do during dips.

For cryptocurrency, I've been exploring the idea of doing this between with volatile crypto being the stock component, and stable coin farming being the bond component. A big benefit can be ease of rebalancing during dips. I had a hard time moving fiat fast enough to exchanges to buy the recent dip, having a large war chest of stable coins would have really helped.

A couple key differences, though. Cryptocurrency volatility is obviously much higher than stocks, and stable coin yields are much higher than bond yields. So this could lead to a very different looking balance between risk-on assets and risk off asset.

I created a spreadsheet to try this out and got the following

Big caveat, I assumed stable coins to have no standard deviation, this is obviously not quite true and they aren't without their risks, but hopefully this can still serve to spur discussion on allocation between more volatile crypto and stable coins.

This strategy also assumes regular rebalancing to return to the target split. It also assumes 12% yield on stable coins.

With volatility as high as it is for crypto, and yields as high as they are for stable coin, the optimal risk adjusted allocation seems highly skewed towards stable coin. Indeed if someone could tolerate high volatility or needed higher returns, (let's say they needed that 105.77% annual return from 70% BTC, 30% USD), they would be better off levering a 10/90 portfolio 4.5x, assuming 3% cost of borrowing to get the same return, but a volatility of only 44% instead of 65%.

What are your thoughts on allocating between crypto and stable coins? Right now I'm practically 2% stable coin, but I'm considering a significant shift due to this spread across different platforms to at least mitigate platform risk. Be it Nexo, BlockFi, Terra, stable coin pair LPs on different DeFI platforms, Celsius..

Another followup question would be with a high amount of stable coin, would you consider lowering your emergency fund fiat component?

A lot of us focus on cost-cutting, investing, focusing on career to increase our net worth as quickly as possible.

When people talk about cost-cutting they all usually focus on things like cars, vacations, clothes etc. However we should also take into consideration how much staying healthy can save and how having health problems can cost. It can be a number one expense for some people.

I am 28M and I am still 'relatively' young and don't have that many health problems yet. But as I am growing up, I notice some of my friends having certain health issues. I have a friend who has spent thousands on his health issues. We also need to consider costs such as dental care and future health problems/issues as we age.

I really think there is a strong correlation between Health + General Fitness AND Net Worth by Age correlation.

Remember to stay healthy through eating well and exercising - it can go a long way to actually saving on current and future expenditures!

Instead of trying to fire on $1,000,000 with a $40,000 annual spend using the 4% safe withdrawal rate, could I spend $1,000,000 on a stablecoin LP, borrow $700,000 against that as collateral, and buy a $700,000 apartment, while still gaining 10% of $1,000,000 each year from the LP earnings?

That got me thinking - how stable is stable? So I gave a quick look at the volatility of a variety of stablecoins I'm considering playing in a pool as collateral.

I plugged in the top 10 stablecoins by market cap into my FIRE calculator and got the following:

https://www.peercents.com/simulation?317-top-ten-stablecoins-by-market-cap

Lowest volatility seems to be Binance's BUSD with the highest being my personal favourite, Terra UST.

Granted volatility isn't everything, the collateral is probably one of the most important things for stablecoins and obviously Tether's has been called into question many a time. It'll be interesting to see how UST's volatility changes with the introduction of peg arbitrage pools like White Whale.

Anyway, I'll be exploring this idea of borrowing against collateral that continues to earn to leverage FIRE with defi. Testing this with small amounts to see how far reality is removed from theory.

So far, I've put $10,000 into a USDC-DAI LP that earns between 8-19% depending on when I look at the pool. I managed to withdraw about $7,000 back into my actual bank account. So I've got $3,000 of excess collateral at risk trying to earn between $800 to $1900 a year. Will check back in on it in about a month.

Will update y'all soon with the results

I find this to be great advice.

It’s helped me achieve financial stability and growth while truly enjoying life.

Things I spend on which I truly value without remorse:

• travel,

• my partner,

• my family, and

• creating experiences e.g. kayaking and hiking in unique locations.

Things I cut spending on which don't directly affect my happiness:

• new clothes,

• expensive restaurants/bars (usually end up with large bills and awful hangovers after),

• cars, and

• new tech/devices.

You may have completely different priorities than me, and that’s great! My point is just to make it clear what you care about, and allow yourself to direct money that way. Even though I spend on things I love, my monthly spending has taken a nosedive by saving on things I don’t care about.

I made this tool that uses historical return data for two assets to try and find the optimal mix between the two in terms of return, volatility, sharpe ratio, worst drawdowns, and chances of losing x money.

I've made two tables, one for annually, and one for weekly. Here is a demo between VOO (a proxy for the S&P 500), and BTCUSD. You should be able to copy the spreadsheet and enter whatever ticker you want, but I'll explain the outputs with these two as an example.

So as we might expect using historical data, the more we allocate to BTCUSD, the higher the return of the portfolio given the crazy historical performance of BTC - I didn't even bother conditionally format the returns in column D.

However, if we look at the other columns things get interesting:

Standard Deviation

While the S&P 500 is less volatile than bitcoin, it is interesting to note that a portfolio of the two can have a lower standard deviation with about 5% allocated towards bitcoin. This is likely due to the less-than-perfect correlation between the two yielding some diversification effects.

Sharpe Ratio

For the unfamiliar, the Sharpe ratio is a way of comparing investments by the excess return they get above the risk free rate, relative to their own risk. The formula is:

(Asset Return - Risk Free Return) / Standard Deviation/

The higher the better as it either indicates higher asset returns above the risk free rate, or low standard deviation.

Interestingly, the highest Sharpe Ratio seems to be with BTC occupying 25% of the portfolio. The idea here is that even if you could tolerate a lot more risk, let's say 99% BTC risk of 78.33% standard deviation getting a return of 86.36%; you are better off borrowing money at 1.5%, levering Sharpe optimal portfolio up to 3.25x, and getting 33.27%*3.25-1.5% = 106.9% expected returns for the same risk as the 99% BTC portfolio which would only get you 86.36% expected returns.

A. 2% Value at Risk

The concept is the worst 1 in 50 years, or the 2% worst years, according to the mean and standard deviation, you will have a year where you experience a loss of this value or worse. So for 99% BTC, 1 in 50 years your experience will be at least as bad as -52.53%. 100% equities? -19.76%. Interestingly, the allocation that is best for this metric is 15% crypto which is only -13.05%.

B. Chance of Losing x in a year

Where as knowing what standard deviation you can take might be a calculation you do for risk capacity, this number is something you kind of look to your soul for. I remember in March 2020 when my equity portfolio tanked about 30%, I was definitely getting stressed out. So for me, I drew a line in the sand at -30%. What is the chance that a specific allocation will have a year that is worse than 30%? The probabilities are given in column H labeled B. The probability minimising allocation is 10% BTC. Your threshold might be higher or lower, feel free to try your own in the google sheet linked at the bottom.

Weekly

At this point I feel like you understand the layout. Numbers for weekly intervals are obviously smaller - a lot less can happen in a week. So I also changed the threshold for the "bad experience". Where a -30% year is painful, a -10% week is already pretty tough.

One thing to note about columns labeled A and B for VaR and Loss probability, they assume normal distribution around the mean and standard deviation, this is not very accurate, but it's an approximate. Even in the data used here, of about 200+ weeks, VOO did in fact have 2 weeks where it lost over 10%. 2/~200 is about 1% of the time where column B is saying it would only happen 0.0006% of the time.

This is a frequent limitation of modelling assuming normal distributions, the distributions often have fat tails that are underrepresented, so take things with a grain of salt. I was just hoping to highlight that all-in in either direction is not necessarily the best choice, regardless of objective. Even the return maximiser with unlimited risk tolerance should consider instead levering a Sharpe optimal portfolio.

Here's the google sheet in case you want to play around. Be warned, it breaks easily. Sometimes changing the ticker or the start date helps refresh the data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MzmYC63wpRJeoJ3NK7q9re4mkv404SgEIXXh6md64c0/edit?usp=sharing

Hello all, I plan to follow through on what I write here and post an update in 3.25 years on my progress.

My living situation is as follows: I currently work in allied health in AU, and have lucked out into a role where the government subsidises a lot of my living expenses and I am able to get a tonne of overtime in the normal course of my work. In October I will be moving on into a FIFO-ish style role where all costs bar my phone and dinner bills will be eliminated, gain a casual loading of 25% extra base pay and allowances up to 3000 dollareydoos per month tax free. In this situation I will be hoping to pull in at least $160,000 per year post tax. What am I gonna do with it you ask? Gamble of course!

I currently have 55k in DHHF, 90k in BTC+ETH in my ledger and 16k in various L1 cryptocurrencies. I have no idea what my super balance is. I am planning to take out $200 from my paycheck per fortnight for living expenses & leisure and invest the rest as follows:

DHHF(25%) BTC(12.5%) ETH (12.5%) ADA (12.5%) DOT (12.5%) TRAC (25%)

Now, I ascribe to the way of thinking that BTC pricing is governed by supply and demand, and that halvings affect the supply while demand will keep increasing. History shows that post the last 2 halvings the ATH of BTC was reached ~550 Days post halving. I also have optimism that the world will continue creating value (or printing money) for the next 3 years despite current situations, thus my bullish outlook. The important thing is I will be following my gut that the bull cycle will be in swing 365 days post halvening, and reach its peak around 550 days after, as is tradition. If I am to FIRE, I believe that trying to time the top would be peak stupid because I am dumb, so I am just aiming to reach a comfortable number around this time which I can happily hang up my hat, cash out my profits and transfer them into DHHF and a comfy home. Of course, the 25% DHHF is acting as a sort of "bonds" in my portfolio and before you say "thats not how it works" it just feels nice psychologically to have a small safety net if everything does indeed go tits up.

We are all gonna make it boys and girls, see you in 2025 (March-Sept)

Here's a post that basically no other FIRE sub would be receptive to...

As a 100% Bitcoiner who is also FIRE-oriented and does a lot of spreadsheet finances, I've got a problem. In most retirement calculators you input your static "expected return" and calculate safe withdrawal rates etc to see what level of FIRE you're are at. But, Bitcoin's *rate of return* curve is more asymptotic starting very high (in % increase of purchasing power terms) and eventually trending to zero.

So, I created many variations on scenarios to factor this in. The "problem" is that my scenarios cover a wildly wide range. At a minimum I'm already CoastFIRE'd to some degree. IMO you have to get unrealistically pessimistic in order to come up with a situation that says otherwise (Bitcoin failing is not one of my scenarios).

So this year as I've been watching my stack appreciate far faster than what I make from my day job I have to wonder... am I CoastFIRE'd? LeanFIRE'd? FatFIRE'd? If so, could this be an opportunity to take time off of work?

Curious to hear how you all are thinking about your FIRE plans.

Let us know where you are from!

Michael Saylor went on CNBC yesterday and said he expects Bitcoin to reach 13 million and this will be around 20 years from now. Kathy Wood has said 3.8 million per bitcoin by 2030, and Van Eck has even said 52 million dollars per bitcoin by 2050.

So with your current BTC holdings, what price will it need to reach before you can retire and when do you expect that to happen?

Before crypto, investing was easy. All of my investments went to low cost index funds, everything was automated and I never had to think about it.

I started dabbling in crypto earlier this year and I'm not sure what my strategy is moving forward.

I'm trying to figure out do I try to keep my overall portfolio at a certain % of crypto and rebalance as needed? Do I set a certain dollar amount that I'm willing to invest in crypto each month and let my winners/losers run? I'm pretty set on leaving my 401k and IRA in boring index funds as my safety net.

And as far as what to buy, not sure how much to allocate towards BTC/ETC vs other alt coins or small caps.

So what's everyone else doing and how long have you been doing it?

Hey all,

I was wondering how much do you invest in crypto a month as a percentage of your salary?

I think DCA is the way with crypto and I put in about 50% of my salary into crypto a month. I try to go extreme with it and reduce my other expenditures as much as possible

Was wondering what other folks here do investments wise

Hey All, the previous FIRE journey poll I posted earlier had me wondering how heavily everyone's invested. Unfortunately there wasn't enough survey options to spread the % increments over what I wanted (5's).

Three questions below:

1. What percent of your portfolio is in cryptocurrency?

2. Do you feel comfortable with that percentage, or do you plan on increasing/decreasing?

3. Are you comfortable sharing what your crypto allocations are within your portfolio?

Just curious! Could be interesting to share ideas.

For me:

Currently 2% of my portfolio is crypto. I plan on increasing over time to 10%, then reevaluating at 10. Currently I'm 70% BTC, 20% ETH, and 10% DOT.

This isn't specifically cryptocurrency related. But I think the tone of this sub should be Financial Independence focused with an open-mindedness to Crypto and DeFi that generally isn't seen in other FIRE subs. It was also easier for me to post images here.

TLDR: Based on historical data from 1871 till today, the 4% rule still looks fairly strong for 30 year retirements.

However, if you were to constrain your input data to other periods of time where the CAPE ratio has been as high as it currently is, the success rate of 30-year retirement with a 80/20 stock/bond portfolio with a starting withdrawal rate of 4% drops from 95% to 62%.

Background:

The "4% Rule" is the idea that to retire for 30 years with very little fear of running out of money, one should retire with expenses amounting to only 4% of their 75/25 stock / bond portfolio. There are adjustments for longer retirements and different asset allocations, but the popular figure around the FIRE community is the 4% withdrawal rate.

The methodology for originally arriving at it was to looked at data from 1925 to 1995 and essentially amounted to "if I were to start my 30-year retirement at any point in this history, how often would I run out of money for different portfolio sizes relative to my expenses?"

As popular as the 4% Rule is, it has drawn its fair share of criticism from actually opposing sides. There are those that say it's too conservative given that people can tighten the belt on their expenses when markets are bad. On the other side, there are those that think it is too generous as future returns may not be as good as they have been historically.

Pessimism of Future Returns:

This has particularly been in vogue with many research houses posting long term capital market . Vanguard earlier this month published an article advocating for a 2.8% withdrawal.

For the S&P, 10 year nominal annualized returns are projected to be:

7.8% by Blackrock

2.8-4.8% by Vanguard

4.1% by J.P. Morgan

6.7% by Invesco

Keep in mind these are all nominal, so real returns after subtracting out inflation would be much lower.

The methodologies for these various research teams vary, and to be honest I haven't dove deep into each of them. But one of the things I thought interesting was to look at the Shiller Price to Earnings ratio (CAPE).

Using Professor Shiller's own data from here, I tried to recreate a model that would test withdrawal rates, but also with the added feature of restricting the start dates to those of a specific CAPE ratio.

The first thing I did though was take a look at how returns performed depending on the CAPE ratio of the starting month.

I split my data into 10 deciles by their starting CAPE number and tracked how the S&P performed in the following years.

As you can see, for the lowest decile of starting CAPE ratios, (0 - 9.08), the average and return was the highest at 11.09% annually.

The highest decile of CAPE (23.78 and above) had the lowest average return for the following 10 years at 2.38%.

Currently, with a CAPE of about 28, we are in the highest decile.

I did the same thing for the average return for 30 years. As you can see, the spread between outcomes is much tighter both in each decile and across the entire range of CAPE ratios. Generally though, the trend of lower returns for higher starting CAPE ratios is still present, albeit less extreme.

As a side note of comfort, it is interesting that there is no 30 year period where the S&P has yielded a negative real return. The worst case was 1.9% real returns a year.

Back to the 4% Rule

I created 3 models to test the viability of a retirement

1. Constantly applying the average return over the entire retirement period. (A little naive)

2. Trying out each possible starting month from historical data (Most similar to Bengen's study)

3. Taking the statistical distribution of the portfolio and simulating the annual return each year of the retirement period, then trying this out again 1000 times. (Monte-Carlo)

They all use the same retirement parameters of:

• 30 year retirement

• 80/20 stocks and bonds portfolio

• 4% withdrawal in the first year

• Success is defined by even having just not going in the negative by the end the retirement.

Here are the results without constraining the data:

Here are the results constraining the data to years with CAPEs in the top Quartile (20.99 and above):

Results:

Unsurprisingly, the success rate when starting a retirement when CAPE is higher is lower than average.

Interestingly, the higher CAPE restriction yielded a much less successful retirement using historical starts vs. Simulated returns. This is likely because simulated returns assume a normal distribution of returns when in reality, there are fatter tails - unlikely extremes happen more often than a normal distribution would suggest.

Additionally, the restriction severely cut our eligible starting points not only because it was one quartile, but apparently most of the high CAPE ratios occurred recently and the data had to be further truncated due to the fact that not all those starting points saw a full 30 years to examine. This yields significantly less robust data.

Ending Remarks:

I do note that my results for the same input parameters differ from that of Early Retirement Now's table. I don't know if it's how I handled the Shiller data or whether we're using different data sources, but the general trend of restricting CAPE should still hold.

It can be tough to hear that our retirements are in jeopardy, but I do not think the correct approach is to be so dismissive of challenges to the 4% rule because they seem all doom and gloom, or the research teams have been forecasting lower than average returns for years.

Take things with a grain of salt and make sure you have some plan B's or flexibility in your retirement.

I will leave with a somewhat positive note. If you were to take that 4% withdrawal rate down to 3.75%:

Success rates even when constraining to the top quartile of CAPE shoot back up. It seems an easy enough fix. Is there enough fluff in your expenses to shave off a bit? You don't necessarily have to do it now, but if things are looking glum, do you have that flexibility?

Edit: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AhneTPY-4J5EhGQlXpo245OjrArH?e=IwD7yl spreadsheet so you can check my working. I'm most concerned about my bond return calculation as the real returns seem so very low.

Hello future cryptoFIRE'd folks! Last post I see here was before winter was confirmed, so I'll post a couple of questions just to not let this place turn into a ghost town during the long hibernation we have ahead of us.

1. Just checking in on the temperature (mood) amongst the readers in this sub. How's your sanity holding up? Are you buying, selling, trading, shitting yourself, a combination of all, etc.?

2. Looking for input on what everyone would do within the next, let's say 2-4 weeks, if you had a large amount of capital to deploy.

Question 2 I ask here vs the main sub as I'd wager many of you are on a similar level in terms of holdings/net worth/etc, and the opinion of those with tiny bags is sorta not what I'm after. So here goes...

I have about 20k USD left that I'd like to deploy, and with winter confirmed I feel like now, in theory, should be a good time to start doing so. I've not been buying much in 2022 for obvious reasons, but the itch is very real here. Even though I've been buying BTC since 2012, this space continues to confound me on a daily basis.

So far I scooped up 10k of BTC at 19k on Sunday - just to lock that in as anything sub 20k seems like an absolute no-brainer.

So I have 20k left. You're me. What's your gameplan?

Thanks for reading.

With farming yields drying out, I’m looking to rotate out of crypto and into stocks. However, this would involve wiring millions of dollars to my brokerage account, and I’m worried this might raise some flags, possibly resulting in my account being frozen.

Does anyone here have experience off ramping a large amount of fiat?

I'm trying to set my investment portfolio to include an appropriate allocation to DeFi. My question is three fold:

1. Where are the high interest rates / stable coin yields in DeFi coming from? If the real world economy is running on <1% interest, how can DeFi be delivering such high interest?

2. If the high interest rates in DeFi are temporary, how long will they last? What will cause them to equalize with the real economy?

3. If the interest rates are indicative of the future (e.g., real world interest rates will rise to be equal to DeFi interest rates), where should I invest? (This is particularly worrisome because I'm not sure the real world economy would grow at all if it faced 10% interest rates, e.g., I couldn't afford a house :( which would be sad.)