Why is it that people are always brave enough to average down on losing positions but hesitant to add to winning ones? After trading for a while, I’ve realized that human nature naturally prefers 'buying cheap' over 'buying right.' When a coin drops 30% after purchase, we feel like it’s a better deal: add more, and the average cost goes down. But when a coin rises 30%, with the trend, volume, and capital all confirming the move, we hesitate, thinking it’s too expensive and fearing we’ll buy at the top. I used to be like this too. For losing positions, I’d keep averaging down because every time I added, the average cost got closer to the current price—it felt like I was fixing a mistake. For winning positions, I’d sell early because cashing out immediately proved my judgment was correct. The usual outcome? Weak assets keep piling up, while strong ones get sold off too soon. In the end, the portfolio is left with nothing but the worst-performing positions. Averaging down isn’t inherently wrong, but only if the price drops while the logic behind the trade remains intact. If the fundamentals deteriorate, tokens keep unlocking, and capital continues flowing out, then 'lowering the cost' is just amplifying the same mistake. Similarly, adding to winning positions isn’t blindly chasing highs—it’s about continuing to participate after the trend is confirmed, using new stop-loss levels and position management. Trading isn’t about collecting cheap tokens; it’s about allocating more capital to directions that are proving themselves. Remember: lowering your cost doesn’t mean lowering your risk. The real danger isn’t buying expensive—it’s holding your largest position in the worst judgment just to break even.