[![ARG_big-balls.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/d1PRC4sF/ARG_big-balls.jpg)](https://postimg.cc/sBmZdPGH)

DarthCoin

> hopefully, a substantial amount of savings in fiat that can cover your expenses for several months in case of immediate emergencies.

> Now, imagine your boss kindly sends you $10,000 as Bonus

Now we're suddenly talking about emergency funds and bonuses. Moving the goal posts? 

I thought you meant _literally_ all in, 100% bitcoin, 0% fiat at all times

Complete exposure to volatility

That's at least what I am arguing against and in favor of DCA. 

> My point with this "You Shouldn't DCA Bitcoin" is that instead of spreading out the conversion of those $10,000 over a year (buying small amounts regularly), i suggest converting the entire sum at once and avoiding the DCA approach altogether.

Okay, I see. I can agree somewhat with that.

I guess the best is a mixed strategy: lump sum first, then "DCA" (or however you want to call regular buys) and buy the dips

Zepasta

> Holding/spreading fiat poses a higher risk than holding Bitcoin, especially if you live in countries with high inflation rates.

Good point. But I know that my monthly costs are "fixed" in EUR. Fixed in quotation marks because of inflation, as you mentioned. 

But I would say I live in a country where the inflation is more predictable than the price of bitcoin.

So I'd rather play it safe and hold funds in EUR that I have to spend in EUR (@DarthCoin responding in 3, 2, 1... lol) anyway.

We might agree that DCA is a _short-term_ risk management strategy?

> Sure, I can go all in at the peak and be in a loss for two years, who cares?

You should care since you potentially can't eat or have a shelter for these 2 years if you really did go all in

Something lost in communication may be that one can be 99% in bitcoin but still DCA and hold emergency funds.

Is that not "basically" all in? 