It's better for such poor people earning very little amount of money and only have $1 as their disposal income not to use bitcoin for payment method but use bitcoin as long-term investment. If they continue accumulating with DCA overtime, they can use their bitcoin investment to upgrade their financial situation in the future. Bitcoin is best for the poor as an investment and not as a currency to use for payment.
With his daily income of $1, such a person should cover his daily needs (food, drink, etc.) and only the remaining money can be spent on buying bitcoin, which will probably be less than $1. And then, buy bitcoin with the remaining "less than $1" money, from which part will go to the exchanger's commission (part of this amount will be spent on the
BTC-network commission for the transaction). As a result, a near-zero amount will come to the wallet of the hypothetical "poor person".
Can reduce expenses if first save $1 for a month, and then buy bitcoin for 1 transaction. But still, in my opinion, this will allow to accumulate very little amount of BTC and it will take "eternity" to accumulate a significant and noticeable amount.
It seems to me that for the poor, bitcoin is not suitable for either investment or payment, and therefore, in poor countries, bitcoin will not be able to become widespread until the standard of living in these countries rises to an acceptable level (when people will have at least a small surplus in money minus the cost of daily needs). Also, to use bitcoin, need a PC/laptop or a smartphone. And how do you imagine buying even the cheapest smartphone with a daily income of $1? That is, a technical limitation arises that will "slow down" the adoption of bitcoin in poor countries. In poor countries, it is easier to use "old paper money" as a means of payment and a means of accumulation. Of course, this is a bad option, but in that situation, it is "the lesser evil."