BTC paycheck = DCA?

[goldkingcoiner]

Is getting paid in Bitcoin periodically considered DCA?

A lot of people here on this forum equate and refer to receiving weekly signature campaign payment in Bitcoin as "DCAing". But is it really DCA?
 
Technically, there is no capital being deployed to purchase the asset, so it would be considered income, not investment.

However, even though the mechanism differs, it has the same outcome - a accumulation effect over time.
Perhaps, you could philosophize that holding a certain currency is an investment into that currency itself.

But there are other trains of thought.

What are your thoughts on this?

[NeuroticFish]

It depends.
If you spend those bitcoins before the month ends, that's clearly not DCA. If you HODL the coins, I don't see why it would not be considered some sort of DCA, even if the (fiat equivalent) amount is probably not the same per period.
You may want to clear this up in the OP.

I think you meant holding and then imho it's DCA. I don't see it different from converting other means of income into Bitcoin.

PS. I also don't see why is this off topic on a bitcoin forum 

[BADecker]

@OP. What does DCA mean? Are there any airports in the district of Columbia?

[rat03gopoh]

Technically, there is no capital being deployed to purchase the asset, so it would be considered income, not investment.

Isn't setting aside a portion of your income to buy bitcoin an investment?
Almost all campaign rewards are in $ rates. I don't think it matters what bitcoins are earned with; as long as they're within a consistent timeframe and fiat amount, yes, it's DCA.

Countries where you can live comfortably on $5 a day do exist. I'm pretty sure some people could live a little more luxuriously with sig campaign earnings.

[philipma1957]

Is getting paid in Bitcoin periodically considered DCA?

A lot of people here on this forum equate and refer to receiving weekly signature campaign payment in Bitcoin as "DCAing". But is it really DCA?
 
Technically, there is no capital being deployed to purchase the asset, so it would be considered income, not investment.

However, even though the mechanism differs, it has the same outcome - a accumulation effect over time.
Perhaps, you could philosophize that holding a certain currency is an investment into that currency itself.

But there are other trains of thought.

What are your thoughts on this?

Dude do you  know that to do dca you  need to get coin on a consistent basis.
1day
1week
1month

And you have to hold the fucking coin.

So there is only 1 answer to  your question no since you do not mention holding the coin.

It does not matter that signature coins are "free"

It matters that you get them on a regular basis
It matters that you hold them.


At the op are you a native speaker of English

Or just trolling.

[pooya87]

Technically, there is no capital being deployed to purchase the asset, so it would be considered income, not investment.

I think you are overthinking the definition of an investment.
You are basically saying that in order for it to be an investment, you must perform any job that pays in fiat then use that fiat to purchase bitcoin for it to be an investment. But you can cut the middle man and skip some steps by performing a job that pays in bitcoin and simplify the process.

And it is a great investment too because such jobs could be performed as secondary jobs where you see that as an additional revenue too. For example I remember many years ago I helped someone with something very simple (drawing charts and some analysis using Microsoft Excel) and got paid something like 50 bucks. Those coins (which I still hold) are now worth more than a grand. Is that not an investment?