Maybe I am doing it the wrong way by staking and not trading my tokens, but it feels right this way. Whatever works for you in achieving your goals is what counts at the end of the day.
They say one shouldn't marry their coins and when I look at my portfolio I don't see many divorces in the future. Maybe I need a secondary portfolio in order to take profits as the more I research the more I am thinking long term and will just accumulate more. The problem with that scenario is the profit would end up in my married coins at some point anyway as I believe in those projects more than the others.
I don't see a major problem in this strategy as long as they are accumulating more through compounding which is the APR snowballing adding to the stake making more. The chances are if you have selected the projects wisely then they will continue to increase in value no matter what happens long term.
I understand the sentiment in selling high and buying back lower and growing your bags this way, but the chances are somewhere you will miss out by selling too early or too late. I do believe in the slow growth approach accumulating by adding stake along with the earnings as at some point they will start to increase at a much faster rate.
We can see how this works on Hive as can you imagine if everyone unstaked and sold and then bought back in at a later date. The blockchain would just not be the same as during the phase of the price dropping there would be not much activity with no one holding much value. Stake makes more stake and remaining active is the key to success as I know no other way.
Personally I do believe if a trader was active on Hive it would change their minds and they would end up marrying quite a few extra bags. Your thought process has to be determined how you want to make your wealth as both ways will work over a period of time.
The idea of having a second portfolio has bugged me for a while but then again would it make more than the investments that have been researched? I honestly doubt this as the bankers could do an easy 100-1000 x over the next 5 years. Those researched investments have been selected for a reason and are not seen as a risk but more as a dead cert if there is such a thing in crypto. Every investment has risk, but these seem less risky due to the use cases as they are genuine businesses.
One has to keep in mind most cryptocurrencies could be called a security risk if we use the Howie test. The projects I have selected don't tick all the 4 boxes the SEC would be using. I have heard some people say what does this matter as not all crypto is based in the States but other Governments would use the SEC for their own guidance in regulation. They all copy each other as they are in all honesty rather clueless and useless thinking for themselves.
