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?

[notocactus]

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?

Investment means you have something by some ways and hold it for a long time with strong believe of its value growth. Yes, value growth, not price growth as price comes after the value, and if there is no value, there will be zero price. It is the same, if there is no value growth, there will be no sustainable price growth.

Investors are people who focus on fundamentals of Bitcoin as they know that these things make Bitcoin value, and from good value, Bitcoin will be traded and changed hands on exchanges with good price and big trading volume as demand is huge. As principle of supply and demand, price will be positively lifted upwards with time and if we look at Bitcoin price in yearly lowest price, the trend is bullish.

Investment can be from spending money for buying bitcoin or work for bitcoin directly in salary, or do anything that can have payments even in shitcoins but then you determinant convert shitcoins to bitcoins for long term holding. All of these practice are parts of Bitcoin investment and an investor can have all of these things or just one of them.

[Outhue]

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?

You are so wrong for saying that there is no capital been deployed.

Who pays signature campaign participants? Where is the Bitcoin from? Fiat is involved here, it is either the casino is mining Bitcoin on their own which doesn't make sense or they bought the Bitcoin to pay their signature campaign participants, if we can trace it from the beginning they used fiat to buy the Bitcoin.

Even if they don't, or let's say they used Bitcoin that's lost from gamblers to settle signature campaign participants, where are gamblers getting Bitcoin? They must have bought it anyways, me keeping some portion of my signature campaign reward is considered DCA, because I could decide to sell the Bitcoin for USDT and use them for something else too, I got paid in money but using Bitcoin as payment solution.

[Alvin_talk]

Is getting paid in Bitcoin periodically considered DCA?

No. Getting paid periodically in bitcoin doesn't mean you are investing or doing some sort of DCA. I can be paid periodically in btc but decide to spend the coin to settle my expenses, in such case neither am I investing nor practicing DCA strategy.

The only way getting paid in btc can be considered as DCA is when such a person receives this payment periodically and also decides to Hold for a considerable long period of time (Take note of the texts in bold).

[Strongkored]

Receiving money from signature campaigning can be called DCA, but it has to be held for a long time, not received and sold because this is not an investment in any sense.

[m2017]

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?

I think that with DCA, it doesn't matter how you earn bitcoin:

- you do the work and get paid in traditional currency, which you spend on bitcoin once a week.

- you immediately receive bitcoin for your work once a week.

In both cases, you accumulate bitcoin every week (for example, with sig.campaigns) at the current market price, which forms the DCA.

Therefore, my answer to the question in the title is YES. Although, technically, DCA refers to purchasing during investments to reduce risks. But I'm willing to overlook that fact.

[SatoPrincess]

You are so wrong for saying that there is no capital been deployed. Who pays signature campaign participants? Where is the Bitcoin from? Fiat is involved here, it is either the casino is mining Bitcoin on their own which doesn't make sense or they bought the Bitcoin to pay their signature campaign participants, if we can trace it from the beginning they used fiat to buy the Bitcoin.

Even if they don't, or let's say they used Bitcoin that's lost from gamblers to settle signature campaign participants, where are gamblers getting Bitcoin? They must have bought it anyways,

You misunderstood the point. Read the OP again.

me keeping some portion of my signature campaign reward is considered DCA, because I could decide to sell the Bitcoin for USDT and use them for something else too, I got paid in money but using Bitcoin as payment solution.

Yes, hodling your weekly payment of bitcoins from signature campaign can be considered as DCA but converting your bitcoins to Usdt isn’t the ideal concept of DCA.

[SamReomo]

Receiving money from signature campaign can't be called DCA for some obvious reasons. The first reason is that the amount one receives from the campaigns differ from time to time depending on number of posts and on payment rates of those signature campaigns.

If someone still holds the income from the signature campaign weekly payment and continue holding that for long term then that's still a good way to accumulate Bitcoin, however, it wouldn't be called DCA, but saving instead I believe.

I know it works the same way as DCA but one should keep adding those $$$ that he/she gains per week from signature campaigns even if he/she is no longer in any campaign, that way it might be similar to DCA.

[salad daging]

Receiving money from signature campaign can't be called DCA for some obvious reasons. The first reason is that the amount one receives from the campaigns differ from time to time depending on number of posts and on payment rates of those signature campaigns.

Some signature campaigns don't follow the pay-per-post rule, instead setting the pay based on a minimum number of (20) posts.
Even though the payout differs from time to time, it can still be considered DCA because it's the same as setting aside each week for accumulation.

If someone still holds the income from the signature campaign weekly payment and continue holding that for long term then that's still a good way to accumulate Bitcoin, however, it wouldn't be called DCA, but saving instead I believe.

For me, it's the same thing, because the payment from the signature campaign is every week, so we consider it as DCA if the coin is kept for a long time.

I know it works the same way as DCA but one should keep adding those $$$ that he/she gains per week from signature campaigns even if he/she is no longer in any campaign, that way it might be similar to DCA.

Yep this is true, then someone is no longer in the signature campaign then they must be able to get income from other sources to continue their DCA.

For me, signature campaign payments are still considered DCA.

[Publictalk792]

Working as automatic savings plan, it is great idea to be paid in Bitcoin and become rich, despite view by experts on whether it should be called Dollar Cost Averaging. Actually, it is likely to be seen as pay, not as buy, to get Bitcoin as salary, but it has the same result as DCA you have more of asset when it is cheap and less when it is dear, evening out your starting cost over time. You are making real time choice of putting your work directly into the network, which does not need a bank or middleman, by skipping step of getting payment in cash first. This is either standard investment or simple case of saving bits in new way, but regardless, final result is an investment habit that keeps your holdings until they grow and you are not tricked by pneed to guess market.

[Furball808]

It is DCA with one less extra step. Others implement their DCA strategy by buying more bitcoins every time they get their salaries or paycheck but if you are already getting paid in bitcoin then no need to buy bitcoin you just need to hold them and if you are even getting paid regularly then you are also implementing DCA regularly

However, even though the mechanism differs, it has the same outcome - a accumulation effect over time.

[KiaKia]

It is still very much a DCA because if Bitcoin never existed we will get paid in USD, it is still a form of getting paid like salary, and holding part of that in BTC is still a good DCA method.

There are people on this forum that gathered a lot of Bitcoin by participating in signature campaigns, they could swapped them to money and spend it, instead they held their Bitcoin, how is this not a DCA strategy too?

[uneng]

Signature Campaign is an extra income people make, meaning they must have a main job at same time. So, that extra income they make would be going to investment purposes, anyway. The difference is that instead of using the extra income to invest, they are already paid through the investment itself.

It's much better, since they don't have to exchange the funds into another currency, what would mean having to pay taxes and fees. Better yet if the campaign pays directly to the hardware wallet of the participant, so he doesn't even has to spend on transactions' costs.

[pawanjain]

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?

In most of the signature campagins, the payments are being calculated with respect to the USD price every week and then being paid in bitcoin.
So we are being paid a particular USD worth of bitcoin every week and that is what basically DCA means.
We accumulate bitcoin periodically at different rates to average out the dollar cost of it.
I don't see a reason why we cannot call signature payments as DCA. Practically it is DCA.

[aylabadia05]

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.

The capital intended for purchase, in the DCA understanding of the technique and how it works, is to acquire assets. If someone acquires assets without spending any capital to purchase them, that's the same and can be considered DCA.

What I'm saying here is essentially the same as what the person before me meant.
From the signatures received each week, users can convert them into assets to be held for a specific period of time, as desired. This could be one, two, or up to four years.