Maybe we can try to explore different kinds of investors in regards to ways that they might accumulate BTC and perhaps we don't even need to go too far down the path of comparing BTC accumulators to traders.
The most that a person who is ONLY buying (and not using leverage and/or trading) can screw up is to have an average BTC price at the top of the market, so just by definition, if someone buys at the top and continues to buy, his average cost per BTC is going to ultimately end up coming down, and in order to be profitable - in terms of the average, then the price that BTC needs to reach will continue to go down as more buys are made, so profitability will come into existence quite long before reaching the ATH again. Of course, the purchase that was made at the top will not get into profits until after reaching the ATH again, and so there can be some variance in terms of whether someone might measure whether they are in profits in terms of transaction by transaction or if they also might consider their average price per BTC, and there should be no reason not to be able to engage in both kinds of practices in order to better understand how to manage the BTC that you have accumulated in terms of how profitable it is - while at the same time, there are some folks who are not very detailed in their keeping track of their BTC, so they might ONLY have ballpark ideas regarding the extent to which their BTC holdings might be profitable or not.
Understanding different types of investors and their strategies for accumulating BTC is interesting. Some investors focus on buying and holding BTC instead of actively trading or using leverage (and I think this is the best strategy).But some of them are those which believe in other strategies and they mently ok.. with it.
For these investors ( who hold BTC) the average BTC price at which they make their purchases is important. If someone buys at the top of the market and continues to buy more BTC over time their average cost per BTC will respectively decrease.This means that the BTC price doesn't necessarily need to reach its ATH again for them to be profitable. The more they buy the lower the required price for profitability. However... it is worth noting that the initial purchase made at the top will not be profitable until the BTC price reaches the ATH again.So individuals may measure their profitability differently either by looking at each transaction or considering their average price per BTC. Doing both can help manage accumulated BTC and assess its profitability. Not everyone keeps detailed track of their BTC holdings and some may only have a rough idea of their profitability. It's always good to have a clear understanding of investments but it is understandable that not everyone is meticulous about it.
Of course, someone who bought at the top and then did not buy any more BTC will be stuck waiting for the BTC price to get back above the ATH in order to get into profits.
Snip
You bring up a valid point. It's true that if someone bought at the top and didn't continue to buy more BTC, they would indeed have to wait for the price to surpass the ATH in order to see profits.
And I have read the example which you have given. I totally agree wthi you.
In conclusion if there is anyone, a trader (except those who leveraging) or an investor they need to hold.
If there is a trader so he bought BTC on top so he will try average the BTC price. But still if he is in loss so he has to wait for weeks for months or even years to get profit when the value will go above his entry point.
In the end, each investor's strategy and goals may differ and it's important to consider multiple factors when assessing the profitability of BTC holdings.