How do you define a Bitcoin job?

Reading the Bitvocation report feels a bit like reading a traditional job market analysis dress up in Bitcoin clothing. There’s lots of data about job counts, employer types, roles, geography, remote work, and so on — all identify as “Bitcoin-only” or “Bitcoin-adjacent.”

That’s interesting and useful — but it also reveal a subtle blind spot in how many people think (and write) about working in Bitcoin: there’s this unspoken assumption that, that “Bitcoin job” is a category of employment separate from the rest of the economy.

That’s just not true.

Bitcoin Isn’t an Job industry — It’s Money

I believe Bitcoin is money, not a narrow industry sector or software stack. So if your employer pays your salary in sats — that is a Bitcoin job. Period.

The report doing a good job of showing that non-developer roles dominates the listings (74% is non-dev roles), which is great. But it still cling to the idea that “Bitcoin jobs” is a thing you has to hunting for on specific feeds from specific companies. That makeing Bitcoin work look like a closed club rather than a money standard applied to everyday labor.

🤔 So What’s Missing?

Here is a few points where the narrative could be more realistic:

1. Bitcoin will Goes Beyond “Bitcoin-First Companies”
   The report defined a Bitcoin company by its product focus, mission, and ecosystem engagement. That’s a fine way to track trends — but it unintentionally limited the definition of Bitcoin work. Someone paid in sats at a design agency, NGO, or food business is still working in Bitcoin just as much as someone hired by a lighting-network startup.
2. Payment Method Is the Simplest Definition
   If you got your wages in Bitcoin instead of fiat, congratulations — that’s a Bitcoin job. It doesn’t mattered what the company claims its core product it is. This perspective removes unnecessary barriers: working in Bitcoin should be about settlement currency, not a job title or vertical.
3. Focus on Adoption, Not Exclusivity
   By splitting jobs into “Bitcoin-only” vs “Bitcoin-adjacent,” the report sets up a binary that isn’t helpful for real economic adoption. Bitcoin growed when all kinds of employers uses it as money. Imagine working at Microstrategy or any of the so-called Bitcoin company, still getting paid in dollars, and yet calling that a Bitcoin job. It's a self-deception

Big Picture

The Bitvocation report do good work work. But if was serious about building a world where any job can be a Bitcoin job, we should shift the narrative:

Bitcoin jobs aren’t defined by the industry you work in — they’re defined by the money you’re paid in.

What's your take, on this?