This week in the East Eight Time Zone, against the backdrop of an overall downturn in the crypto market and increasing liquidations across the network, the address 0x020c…5872 (Brother Ma Ji / Huang Li Cheng) was spotlighted for making a long position on ETH with approximately 25x leverage. As ETH prices slid to around $1896.82-$1899.99, this highly leveraged long position approached the next liquidation line, with public data estimating that it is only about 4% away from being further passively liquidated. In a weak market showing 24-hour declines of 1.4%-2.29%, such leverage nearly compresses the safety buffer to the limit; once the market resumes a downward momentum, individual accounts and the overall market could be caught in a more intense chain reaction of liquidations.
25x Bet on ETH: From Glory...
● Public opinion has focused on this grand bet due to the timing of Brother Ma Ji's address opening a 25x long position on ETH near market highs — its leverage-increasing action occurred during a phase of heightened volatility in ETH and broad pressure on mainstream coins. While most traders chose to reduce positions and observe, this address significantly increased leverage, which was quickly magnified on social platforms, creating a dramatized narrative of "well-known large accounts betting against the trend" and making the subsequent floating losses and liquidation risks more of a topic of discussion.
● According to a currently circulating single data source calculation, this address has an accumulated floating loss range of approximately $27.52 million to $27.56 million in this round of high-leverage positioning, and the relevant figures have been cited multiple times, but the source also emphasizes that these are derived from public chain behavior and estimation logic as an "estimated value", rather than an official reconciliation result from the exchange. Considering the high leverage, and the possibility of staged operations, this loss range should be viewed more as a reference scale for risk magnitude rather than an exact settlement order.
● More noteworthy is that this position is not an isolated "accidental mishap." Research briefs point out that this address has previously shown partial liquidation records multiple times, reflecting a consistently aggressive leverage style: rolling large stakes with high leverage when profitable, and hedging between passive reductions and margin call during retracements. This trajectory means the account operates under a long-term high-pressure state, where any drastic one-sided market movement could become a critical point that crushes overall capital management.
Only 4% Away from Liquidation: Every Price...
● From the day’s market performance, ETH has dropped to the $1896.82-$1899.99 range during this downturn, corresponding to a 24-hour decline of 1.4%-2.29%, situated in a typical weak rebound and strong selling pressure phase. For spot holders, such a decline is still a controllable fluctuation, but for the 25x leveraged long position, every downward test amplifies the volatility of profits and losses manifold, quickly eroding the margin space available to resist liquidation.
● Key information from public data indicates that at the current price range, the next potential liquidation price for this address is only about 4% away from a drop. Under high-leverage mechanisms, this means that if ETH continues to trend downward with one or two medium-sized bearish candlesticks, or experiences a wave of volume-driven selling in a short time, it could trigger a new round of forced liquidation. Prices do not need to exhibit a "crash-like" flash collapse; merely a slight amplification of recent intraday volatility could lead to the position being passively sliced step by step, presenting a tightly paced liquidation path with almost no reaction time.
● It should be repeatedly emphasized that the market currently does not disclose the precise opening price of this account, the specific location of the liquidation line, or the complete margin structure, including the details of individual margin increases and staged position entries, all remain unknown. The claim of "4% away from liquidation" is based more on public information and generalized reasoning, serving as a range risk indicator to comprehend the size of leverage risk, but cannot be equated to an exact triggering point, thus readers must realize its estimating nature when referring to these numbers and not see them as an absolute value for "timing plays."
Chain Reactions of Liquidations: $80.37 Million...
● Shifting the perspective from a single address to the overall market, it is evident that this risk is not an isolated case. According to Coinglass data, during the critical period of ETH decline, the past hour's total network liquidation scale reached $80.37 million, with longs making up 96.4%. This set of figures depicts a typical long squeeze scene: the market was initially betting on a rise, but once the trend accelerated in the opposite direction, the vast majority of highly leveraged longs were concentratedly liquidated within a short time, while onlookers' willingness to go long was further weakened under panic and schadenfreude.
● In this hour of massive liquidations, the price fluctuations of ETH directly triggered approximately $19.77 million in long liquidations, becoming the core amplifier of the chain reaction. Placing Brother Ma Ji's 25x long position into this network's liquidation picture makes it easy to understand why this position was pushed to the center of public discourse: on one hand, its high-leverage position faced passive liquidation pressure, and on the other, this pressure intertwined with the concentration of liquidations from other longs, jointly constituting the most representative high-leverage risk sample in the current weak market.
● When a well-known large account's high-leverage position begins to be passively liquidated, the market-level impact often exceeds the size of the position itself. On one hand, the exchange's matching system will dump a large volume of market sell orders during liquidation execution, further driving prices down; on the other hand, the “bottom fishing follow-up orders” and “panic cut-loss orders” surrounding these large accounts will form a self-reinforcing effect under the amplification of social media. The more people focus on the same liquidation point, the more likely it is to create a temporary liquidity vacuum around crucial price points, which could trigger more intense instantaneous volatility.
Discrepancies in Numbers: Different Monitoring Tools...
● It is worth noting that even regarding the same address and the same group of positions, the loss estimation data provided by different monitoring platforms is not entirely consistent. The most widely circulated set of figures shows that this address's accumulated floating losses are around $27.52 million to $27.56 million in this operation, but there is a discrepancy of about $40,000 between the estimates given by on-chain monitoring accounts and liquidation stat tools. For positions in the tens of millions of dollars, while such differences do not change the conclusion of "massive losses," they suffice to remind us: even data has its uncertain boundaries.
● These differences usually do not stem from "someone falsifying" or "deliberately hiding," but rather from technical discrepancies in statistical criteria and time frames. For instance, some platforms calculate floating profits and losses based on snapshot prices at a specific moment, while others use a weighted average entry price; some will include already liquidated portions in total profit and loss statistics, while others only calculate the floating results of current open positions. When markets experience sharp fluctuations and frequent adjustments, these minor differences can manifest in the final loss estimates, making it appear like "numbers do not match."
● Additionally, many "key details" surrounding this position — such as the specific scale of the ETH position, certain widely referenced precise holding quantities, and opening averages — have been clearly marked as "to be verified information" in research briefs. This means that even if social accounts provide seemingly very specific numbers, they cannot be regarded as established hard facts that have undergone multiple cross-validations. For the average reader, a healthier approach is to focus on risk levels and logical structures, rather than becoming obsessed with unconfirmed "precise decimals," thus allowing for a safe margin for data inaccuracies in cognitive expectations.
The Harsh Truth of High-Leverage Trading: Naming...
● Mechanistically dissecting, the most deadly aspect of high leverage in a downward market is that it compresses the safety pad at a rate far exceeding spot. At 25x leverage, any price reversal of about 4% is sufficient to devour a large amount of margin, compressing risks that could originally be mitigated through time and position management into life-and-death choices that must be faced within hours or even minutes. When the market is in a continuous decline or experiencing volatile rebounds, such leverage ratios are nearly equivalent to exposing one's vital point directly to random fluctuations.
● The case of Brother Ma Ji also exposes the misalignment in risk awareness between retail investors and celebrity addresses: many retail investors easily misinterpret that "big V/celebrity addresses have more information and stronger capital resilience," leading them to mimic their high leverage or even excessively risk-allocate assets. However, the reality is that fame and capital volume do not hedge leverage risks; they only indicate the capacity to endure fluctuations for a longer period, but once forced liquidation rules are triggered, the outcome does not differ at a mechanistic level. The system will not lower the liquidation line because you are a celebrity, nor will it delay the liquidation order because you have fans.
● This incident also reaffirms the necessity of actively reducing leverage ratios and controlling individual risk exposures during periods of heightened volatility. For most non-professional traders, reducing leverage from double digits to single digits, or completely avoiding leverage in periods of significant volatility, is more in line with survival logic. On one hand, lower leverage allows time to wait for market sentiment to recover, rather than being forced to exit at the worst prices; on the other hand, it also avoids tying one's personal asset fate entirely to a single extreme event, thereby retaining the qualification to reallocate in the next cycle.
After the Grand Bet: Will This Danger Change...
Reflecting on the entire process of the ETH 25x long position nearing liquidation, the main storyline is not complicated: in a collectively declining market with amplified volatility, a well-known address that has long employed an aggressive leverage strategy chose to bet against the trend and ended up caught in a network-wide long squeeze and liquidation chain reaction. Behind the illusion of high returns lies the exposure of how systemic leverage risks can concentrate and explode in a short time — account floating losses soaring, liquidation safety margins rapidly compressed, with public discourse surrounding "can they escape" unfolding in real-time live broadcasting.
If the market continues to decline and ETH graduates into another round of downward spreads, the high-leverage long position will face more frequent partial liquidations, potentially triggering larger-scale passive liquidations, further impacting market sentiment and becoming a new footnote to the short narrative. Conversely, if ETH stabilizes near key support or even rebounds significantly, this address may use short-term increases to repair some floating losses and temporarily step back from the brink of liquidation, but the previously left funding drawdown and psychological pressure will not truly disappear with one "successful escape."
Whether this grand bet ends with a tragic liquidation or a thrilling escape, what is more important for ordinary participants is not whether "Brother Ma Ji made a profit or a loss," but rather to extract their own position discipline and risk control bottom line from it. In the face of the celebrity effect, social media sentiment, and various "victory screenshots," what truly determines whether you can survive long-term in this market is not how loud someone’s call is, but whether you clearly know: at what position size, what leverage ratio, and what drawdown level you will unhesitatingly hit the brakes, rather than leaving your fate to the next candlestick.
Join our community, let’s discuss, and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin English Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
