Kava DCA Backtest
Daily-close data from 25 October 2019 to 12 October 2026 (84 months). Last updated 12 October 2026.
Quick answer
Kava DCA Backtest — $100/month in KAVA since 2019 — $8,500 invested, now $1,971 (-77%)
As of 12 October 2026 · Source: KAVAUSDT daily closes (Binance)
At the current exchange rate, $100 ≈ ₹9,570 — totals below are USD-denominated so the historical math stays exact.
Total invested
$8,500
Value today
$1,971
Total return
-77%
Annualized (on contributions)
-18.6%
Monthly buys
85
Average buy price
$100.00
| Price | |
|---|---|
| Cheapest buy | $0.04085 |
| Most expensive buy | $8.17 |
About this metric
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) invests a fixed amount on a fixed schedule regardless of price, removing the stress of timing entries. This simulation buys at the first daily close of every month and values the position at the latest close. It ignores trading fees and taxes, and past performance — especially in an asset with this volatility — does not predict future results.
Methodology
- Data: daily closes from the KAVAUSDT market on Binance (public REST API).
- Window: 25 October 2019 — 12 October 2026; pages recompute at most every 6 hours.
- All figures are calculated by CoinCrypTick from that raw data — nothing is quoted from third parties.
- Not financial advice. Crypto assets are volatile; read the drawdown page before the returns page.
Track KAVA in your dashboard
Free account — alerts, portfolio tracking and historical analytics on this coin and 200+ more.
Frequently asked questions
What if I invested $100 in KAVA every month?
Since 25 October 2019, that plan would have invested $8,500 across 85 monthly buys and would be worth $1,971 today — -77% overall.
What average price did a monthly DCA get in KAVA?
The simulation's average buy price is $100.00, versus the current price of $0.07.
Does DCA beat lump-sum investing in KAVA?
That depends entirely on the entry date — the whole point of DCA is that you don't have to guess. This page shows the mechanical outcome of steady monthly buying; compare it with the yearly returns table to see how lumpy the alternative would have been.