I would generally avoid taking specific advice from people online such as "buy this or that stock (or other investment)" or "go to cash" or "short the market" or whatever. Most people online who are making a single recommendation are either doing so so that they can do the opposite (buy lower or sell higher than you will), or else they probably aren't otherwise the best person to take specific advice from. Investing is a highly individual thing, and you can be sure that no registered investment advisor will tell you to put everything into 1-2 ideas, or to otherwise give you a specific financial plan without knowing about your unique situation - time frames, risk tolerance, specific goals, amount of $ you have, etc.
It would have been great to buy bitcoin at $5-10k or lower, and to have sold most of it at $15-20k. It would have sucked to have bought it at $15-20k and to still be holding it. There's a good chance that those who are trying to encourage you to invest heavily in it are in the latter camp. The smartest and richest among the tech savvy guys in the world who aren't directly involved in trying to profit directly from the coins seem to all say that they invested 1-5% of their nestegg in it early on - and most say they've taken some profits on the way up. I have dabbled in investments related to the coins, but it is not something I'd invest heavily in. If you're going to invest heavily in any one idea, I'd suggest you really, really know what you're doing. And you'd better hope the time is right for that idea. And if that idea is highly volatile, it may be a very difficult idea to invest in.
If you're looking for someone to pay for advice, I think you'd probably be better off meeting with a local professional in person and giving them your $ than to roll the dice with paying a stranger online for trading tips or specific recommendations. If someone has some great system that beats the market and makes them huge returns with minimal risk, they aren't likely to sell it to a few small investors for a few bucks a month. They're either going to keep it secret and turn themselves into mega millionaires, or they're going to start a fund managing the money of super rich folks and turn themselves into a billionaire, charging a 2-5% management fee, and a 20-50% performance fee.
I would also be wary of assuming that just because something happened during a certain month last year and the year before that it is somehow guaranteed to happen this year and every year after. NOTHING happens the exact same way EVERY year, and even if it happens a certain way 90% of the time there's no guarantee it will happen the same way this year or next year.
Another thing to keep in mind when someone says that they made big returns this month or this year (even if they can verify it) is that they may be using lots of leverage, which is highly risky. If your one big idea this month is right and makes you 20% dollar for dollar over the next 30 days, your returns would have been 10 times higher if you had been juiced up $10 to $1. But if your idea was wrong and lost you 10%, you'd be wiped out.
About the only people who I listen to seriously or follow closely are the guys who have done the best - Buffett, Icahn, Peltz, Dalio, Cohen, and a few others. Buffett has averaged 20% a year for over 50 years without using leverage.
I've done very well investing a few bucks in the OPPOSITE of what Citron Research says. When Andrew left says he's short this or that stock, it tends to briefly sell off heavily. I often go in and buy it after it drops that same day. It almost always goes right back up. And if he says (rarely)he's long a particular stock, I may carefully make a short term bet against the stock after it has jumped up on his recommendation. I believe that he says publicly that he is short stocks that he wants to buy (cheaper), and that he is either dumping or shorting the occasional stock he says he's long.
Jim Simons's Renaissance Technologies Medallion Fund averaged something like 40% per year over a quarter of a century, but they were leveraged something like $17-18 to $1 - so dollar for dollar their returns were more like 2-2.5%... When Medallion made 160% shorting the market in 2008, their dollar for dollar returns were more like 9-10%. If anything, I am far more impressed by Medallion's lack of volatility and ability to time the market. Simons and DE Shaw were 2 of the early pioneers of automated high frequency trading - I'd leave the constant day trading up to those who have the many millions to spend on high powered computer systems (and high powered staffs of people to oversee it all), and many billions under management to absorb the high transaction costs and high taxes.
Almost no one can time the market successfully and consistently - most of the best investors are "bottom up" - they focus on finding the best investments, and worry little if any about what the broad markets may do. I may be buying on a day when the markets are down 1-2% or more, but if there are any stocks in my portfolio that may have happened to shoot up big on a bad market day, or if there is a sudden fundamental change in one of my holdings that makes it no longer such a good investment, I'm likely taking profits on such holdings. Steve Cohen has talked about a theory he learned in business school about a stock's performance being 40% market driven, 30% industry / sector driven, and 30% driven by the company itself. If you believe this theory to be accurate, it tells you that up to 60% of a stock's performance is independent of what the broad markets will do.