Pictured: A good enough meal for butterboy – only he would invoke Rockwell on a churning blog

A special thanks to CU-whisperer, new father and all around hilarious dude butterboy for today’s post. For the TDCers reading this, don’t forget to go roast him today on his AMA with Kai.

I recently welcomed a daughter into this world, and I’ve had the last four months off work. Despite being sleep deprived, smelling vaguely of spit-up, and finding normal ways to hit $25 minimum grocery purchases for Publix GC deals (diapers), I’ve had more time than ever to pursue churning since I first started ramping up.

During these four months, I’ve taken what I’d call a maximalist approach, within reason, with respect to time. I have made more grocery store runs than I can count.

Sure, I could probably spend more time driving to grocery stores, but beyond a certain point I’d be cutting into time with what truly matters most: my wife and daughter.

For the sake of this mental experiment, let’s assume this represents 100% churning output. Most systems are non-linear. Muscle growth is a good example. If 40 sets per week per muscle group delivers optimal gains, you might assume that 20 sets would produce roughly half of those gains.

But that’s not how it works. Studies suggest that as few as four sets per week per muscle group can yield about 60% of your potential gains. I think churning behaves like a non-linear system as well.

In the gift card space, there are good brands with limits and supply issues, which can make sourcing difficult. At first glance, grocery manufactured spend seems linear with respect to time: more stores visited equals more profit.

In reality, the returns start to diminish quickly. If you’re rigid about manufactured spend costs, time becomes the only variable left to optimize. When time isn’t a constraint, it makes sense to chase the lowest-cost brands.

But these days, I’d rather go read to my daughter. As I return to work, I’m more willing to accept higher costs in exchange for saving time. I’m getting good rates, though explicitly not optimal ones, but I’m getting time back.

A simplified example might look like this:

• 0.8% fee but 10 minutes (minimalist approach)
• 0.2% fee but 90 minutes and three stores (maximalist approach)

For me, slightly worse rates in significantly less time is the equivalent of doing four sets of bench press to get decent results at the gym. It’s not optimal, but it’s efficient. I expect that in the future I’ll be able to return to a more maximalist approach.

One of the best things about this hobby is that you can scale it up or down depending on what life requires.

-butterboy