I can't get myself to play rated games on chess.com

I have no idea why (perhaps because I'm scared of dropping like 200 points?), but I have not played a rated chess.com game, in any time control, in over a month. A year ago, I was playing so much rapid rated games that I improved a lot, but after I got to 1900, I stopped playing rated games (I'm still 1900 ) Can anyone please give me some advice to overcome this fear of losing rating? Thanks!

Do you make money from playing chess? Is there any way that your life would be negatively affected by a drop in your chess.com rating (other than your pride being hurt)? Do you play chess because you enjoy it or because you seek validation from a number? It is inevitable that you will get worse as a chess player if you don't play chess. If there is a significant reason to preserve your chess.com rating, train against software like Fritz or Hiarcs until you feel comfortable with risking your points. Otherwise, stop waiting, start playing and start working on hitting your ceiling as a chess player.

PLAY BECAUSE ONLINE RATING DONT MATTERS

if you tilt, you tilt, you will get back the rating anyways

Ok thanks

That's the point of rated games you have ups, and you have downs just look at Hans. He droped a lot rating points and he's stall playing. If you don't want to drop points play on Lichess.

I made it to 1500 in November 2024 and stopped playing rated games for fear of losing elo. My rating deviation at that time was very high, 90-100, which meant I was gaining/losing around 25 elo per game. That was a big deterrent for me.

I actually decided to start playing rated games again in March this year, with the sole purpose of decreasing my rating deviation, which would, in turn, lower my fear. So, no matter if I won or lost, every game contributed to a lower rating deviation. Since you've only stopped for a month, your rating deviation probably isn't as high as mine was, but it's still something to think about.

Also, playing games is the only way to get elo. If you don't play any games at all, you won't get anywhere from 1900. Playing games has really helped me improve. Hopefully, it's the same for you.

You’re not afraid of losing points
You’re afraid of what the numbers say about you

But rating is not truth
Rating is control
A leash disguised as progress

Play unrated. Play blindfolded. Play bullet with your soul
Just play

I like to play mostly higher rated opponents by setting the ELO range to -25+300. I feel alot less pressure when there is less points to lose per game, and notice myself dialing in more once Im ahead or equalized looking at the possible 10 11 points. I find recovering from a loss easier as well, since losing to a better player isnt a big deal. Also there is something to be said about playing better opponents in general, for learning and analysis etc.

Generally speaking I hate playing rated games and I wonder why I am still doing it, I'll probably stop it now for good. Too many suspicious characters, new accounts, everyone is either +200 or -200 past 30 days. Like how is that possible, clearly some sort of rating manipulation done on purpose. Not to mention I am getting all the time engine vibes, people do a move and I just have to stop playing, stare at the move and ask myself, wtf does this even mean? But luckily, none of my opponents got banned for cheating in the past 2 years and I have played like 4000 games, so I am clearly just being paranoid. Riiiight
And then I play a few unrated games and I get the feeling like I am actually playing human opponents who play predictable game and also blunder on occasion. Even my loses feel different.

Yeah----- that's a very natural and expected result, when the site in question has been gaslighting average human players psychologically, through a complex combination of hidden-matchmaking protocols, analysis manipulation, and ratings inflation via bot accounts that appear to be "real human" profiles. 
There is no low this site will not sink to as far as I'm concerned. Now they've recently added multiple categories of "pat your back buddy, ya did GREAT!" in the "game review"-- perhaps even intentionally with the foresight of legal challenges becoming a very real possibility; and they WILL. When enough low-mid ranked PAID title players figure out the what's and hows, and how they're all being affected; chess.com will be done for. Few years tops. Less, if any of the "newly elite" title players(. benefitting from such scandals and earning spots in competitions they have no business in... therefore will NEED some sort of computer assistance to perform at that level..) get sloppy and try to divert the backlash off themselves by serving up a far greater bucket of worms.
My completely uninformed and uneducated gut.... Says this has been going on since the beginning, to varying degrees. What they can NOT ever reveal, and what they will die on any hill to distract from? They can psychologically analyze and predict with greater accuracy than any human-- *individual player personalities, playstyles, spending habits, positive ad response rates.... ETC*; do you play off-hand, weird lines that are different every game because you're a "beginner"? But you're actually nice with the emergent positional tactics? AND you have REALLY good runs of crushing against the main lines? 
You're going to be promptly isolated from any ratings pools in which vested parties do NOT want your goofy one-off surprise tactics exposing their "2300 IM" for a 600 with puzzle books memorized or something. 
They likely "shop" this discretely, explaining it as a necessary evil of rated matchmaking-- to counter the ratings deflation inherent to the pools, when the ratio of beginners to pros starts getting too large, such as when chess surges in popularity(Hi Q's Gambit). 
Pool isolation and match organization has always been the hand in the puppet of "equal opportunity play" at the topmost skill levels, and there are valid arguments for elite skilled players to go along with this system, that don't revolve around sneering finger twirling intellectual elitism.
I have zero *evidence* of any of this, to be very clear... there will never be any, outside MAYBE some developer breaks NDA or has to be a witness in a legal proceeding... Almost no staff at the day to day level know anything or would believe if told, is the gist I'm getting. 
One reasonable test of my theory; I'll postulate that in the past 3-5 years, the time that "most" average players--(down to all society's demographics and hyper specific psychological profiles) the time they consider playing chess to be a hobby in which they partake "regularly"-- until hitting whatever board-flipping life-wall..... This site knows who's *worth* WHAT and for HOW LONG they'll be worth that; they can even project your forecasting rating growth.... and CAP it at what level THEY want you to stay; because they know at what level you're worth the most to them. 
When I say... "THEY"....
It's not FIDE.... But they know and benefit GREATLY;
They just have a really solid out; it's ubiquitous and sacrosanct to challenge it in ANY digitally dependent company they sells ad space based on web traffic user volumes and retention times.

Almost no-one capable of being "tailored to" to will recognize or even care what or how.... "what" has happened. It's a functionally moot point. "FYM they manipulated ME? I like chess, guy! So what about it, I like it TOO MUCH for someone like what... like ME? According to WHO? YOU?!" Is the quickly passing train in their empty grand central stations............. Not pointing fingers at anyone; it's a statistical guarantee, and that's why they're the lowest hanging fruit retention-time-improvement. They can be gaslight into wild goose chases and told they completed a lap around the world, and to go for another-- break their record before someone ELSE does(personal best record.. if u get the humor).

It's behavioral-analytics prioritized towards user retention increase, but insofar as it's implemented, leans scarily far over the edge towards "automated psychological programming".

Yall aint ready. It's legit too goofy to be believed.....
The key is getting legal enforcement that the various matchmaking ratings pools are user-opt-in/out, and are always available for anyone to check the full "list" of profiles; however separated they are behind digital scenes; this will kill unfair engine use almost immediately, as users and 3rd party overseers could look at all pools, their global metrics and trends to provide valuable context to anomalous micro-trends; such as hundreds of thousands of profiles all accessing at one time, from one place, or having statistically impossibly similar metrics associated with them, etc, etc. LOTS of ways for a keen eyed gamer-bro to give it the sniff test and say "nope not trying to play against Magnet Carl-Jung 9 times in a row losing on time in a 'equal endgame' where I have NO good moves at ANY point past move 13."
How to GET that legal enforcement.... Shhhhhiiiiiidddddd.......

Here me out now..... 
*Emotional damage*

Someone will roll over for clout or to scapegoat their involvement. Proving will be difficult; they will have been left no hard digital evidence from their time in their role of involvement. Who cares; brushfire just needs an ember at first. Once people who have no business sinking valuable life and money into tactical puzzle battles with other grown men REALIZE that they NOW have a villain to wag their fingers at; they will amass, and so too will the court "of the people" listen.....
Apologies if, and to whoever, may be irked or compromised by any of this. I have not divulged multiple deeper levels to the plot because; I can't make up or down either way past a certain point here; the built-in capabilities to completely fudge googleplex datasets that pass.... other... *COMPUTER'S* statistical "normalcy" checks... and to have a good explanation for everything...
Your efforts are almost non-concerning to them. They have done the thing that allows them to learn the thing that can hide that the thing was done. 
Mods and posterboys gonna come trolling with their usual horse-ish gaslighting, drop some negative comments to muddy the waters in any overtly negative discussions involving suspicions of fairplay, because p v p flamewars are pain in the neck when it's a rare instance of hurting user-growth/retention-times, AND demands immediate action on behalf of the company.
All the talk about cheating.. It always feels like the "powers that be" are giving us a metatextual "fall guy". Admit to the *reasonable* crime and the heinous crime now seems *unbelievable*. 
......Mehthinks therefore me am...

Commit to playing X rated games per week no matter the result.