Let's start with the conclusion—In the backtest of BTC dollar-cost averaging over the past five years, the final return of a threefold leverage was only 3.5% higher than that of twofold leverage, but the risk was almost deadly. Considering risk, return, and practical operation difficulty comprehensively, spot dollar-cost averaging is the long-term optimal solution for ordinary people. Two times leverage is the upper limit acceptable to individuals; three times leverage is really not cost-effective.

A set of five-year data makes this clear. Investing $18,000 in spot, the final account value is $42,717, with a return of 134%; with the same investment using twofold leverage, the final amount is $66,474, with a return of 264%; and with threefold leverage? $68,832, with a return of 277%—it looks like more profit, but from the net value curve's drawdown situation, the problem is significant.

The most painful part is the risk indicators. The maximum drawdown for spot is -49.94%, jumping to -85.95% with twofold leverage, and directly -95.95% with threefold leverage—that's almost the account being wiped out. Looking at the Calmar ratio and Sortino ratio (which measure risk-adjusted returns), the threefold leverage performs the worst, at 0.32 and 0.26. In other words, to earn an extra 3.5%, you have to endure the psychological pressure of nearly wiping out your account. This trade-off is not worth it.