Recently, the crypto derivatives market has experienced a wave of medium to high-intensity contract liquidations, with both long and short positions being cleared, but clearly skewed towards the long side. The total liquidation scale across the network fluctuated between approximately $150 million and $190 million, with BTC and ETH contracts contributing over $100 million in forced liquidations, affecting around 90,000 traders. The largest single liquidation occurred in Hyperliquid's BTC-USD contract, amounting to several million dollars. In this round of not-so-"epic" market fluctuations, the statistical range difference of $150 million to $190 million between data platforms itself exposes the invisibility of the true leverage volume and liquidation paths in the derivatives market.
Core of the Event
Recently, the prices of leading crypto assets have oscillated within a non-extreme correction range, yet this has triggered significant leverage clearing in the derivatives market. Statistics from several data service providers indicate that the total amount of liquidations across the network is around $150 million to $190 million, with long liquidations approximately between $90 million and $120 million, and short liquidations around $60 million to $69 million, showing that the losses on the long side are significantly heavier.
In terms of asset distribution, the liquidation amount for BTC contracts is approximately between $46.5 million and $57.88 million, while ETH is in the range of $33.6 million to $50.16 million, together accounting for a considerable proportion of this round of liquidations, confirming that mainstream assets remain the concentration of leverage. During the same period, about 90,000 trader accounts experienced forced liquidation events, indicating that the risk release in this round has a certain breadth at the account level and is not limited to a few professional participants.
Hyperliquid has become one of the focal points: statistics from public data show that the largest single forced liquidation across the network occurred in the BTC-USD trading pair on this platform, amounting to several million dollars, with some versions estimating the upper limit to be nearly $8 million. This means that in a market fluctuation that is not extreme, the liquidation of a single high-leverage account can "overshadow" the vast majority of retail and mediocre positions in the data rankings.
Incentive Analysis
On the news front, there has not been a single, overwhelming black swan event recently; rather, it resembles a collective correction by the market in response to a series of gradual negative news and a retreat in risk appetite. Some media and research institutions have mentioned that although the price correction of mainstream assets is limited, "this round of market activity has had a significant impact on leveraged long funds," corroborating the data structure observed in this article.
From a funding perspective, on one hand, the perpetual funding rates in the derivatives market have been leaning towards the long side for some time, indicating a crowded long position, with some contract prices showing a premium over spot; on the other hand, Arkham has detected a transfer of over $60 million worth of BTC and ETH from Grayscale, which, while emphasizing that this is a single-source data point, cannot be directly interpreted as an active market suppression but can be seen as a signal that institutions are rearranging their funding and custody structures. The movement of funds between on-chain and off-chain and across different vehicles inherently brings changes to the liquidity structure, laying the groundwork for the liquidation chain.
On the sentiment front, as reports indicate that high-risk segments like crypto gaming are "almost completely exhausted of venture capital" (from Decrypt, a single source), existing funds are more inclined to engage in speculation around blue-chip assets like BTC and ETH and their derivatives. The retreat of risk appetite from "storytelling sectors" to "high-leverage markets" has made prices appear mild on the surface, while the leverage structure has become increasingly tight, forming the emotional backdrop for this round of concentrated long liquidations.
Deep Logic
From a macro funding environment perspective, the recent global liquidity rhythm has become more neutral or even tight, with interest rate expectations, risk asset valuations, and regulatory uncertainties collectively squeezing the overall risk premium in the market. Crypto assets no longer enjoy the unilateral liquidity dividends they once did in this cycle; instead, they seem to have been incorporated into the basket of conventional high-risk assets, with a decreasing tolerance for drawdowns and volatility.
In terms of sector rotation, funds are withdrawing from high-story, high-valuation segments and concentrating on mainstream assets with better liquidity and richer hedging tools. BTC and ETH, in this context, not only play the role of directional bets but also serve as the underlying assets for various structured products and risk management tools. As their derivative positions pile up, the price fluctuations themselves may not amplify, but the layers of leverage continue to rise.
The disconnection between on-chain and off-chain data further exacerbates this structural tightness. The perpetual and futures position data from centralized exchanges only cover part of the leveraged exposure, while the leverage in decentralized derivatives protocols, on-chain lending, and staking derivatives is harder to fully account for in unified statistics. In a market where the ledger is not unified, any marginal change in funds—such as institutional relocations or financing contractions in certain sectors—can potentially trigger a chain reaction in unseen corners. Thus, what we observe is not an "extreme black swan" at the price end, but rather a magnified feedback from the leverage structure in an environment of information opacity responding to moderate fluctuations.
Long-Short Game
From the data perspective, the imbalance in long and short structures is one of the most intuitive features of this round of liquidations. Long liquidations are approximately between $90 million and $120 million, while short liquidations are only around $60 million to $69 million, indicating that the longs have borne significantly higher liquidation losses in absolute terms. Coupled with the previously long-biased funding rates and the "bullish narrative" on social media, it can be reasonably inferred that prior to this round of adjustments, the market was characterized by a crowded long position.
The logic of the longs is more based on mid to long-term narratives—including expectations for incremental ETF products, the eventual arrival of a macro easing cycle, and institutions gradually allocating crypto assets—on this basis, many funds chose to amplify directional bets of "it will rise eventually" through high-leverage contracts. However, high-leverage longs often rely on short-term fluctuations not exceeding the preset "intraday range," and once a slightly larger-than-expected correction occurs, they will be concentratedly triggered for forced liquidation.
On the short side, there was also a liquidation scale of about $60 million to $69 million, indicating that during short-term rebounds or price surges, some counter-trend shorts also incurred costs. However, in terms of magnitude, the shorts seem to be "taking losses step by step" during localized fluctuations rather than being structurally squeezed. Therefore, it can be said that the main contradiction in this round of long-short games does not lie in the price fluctuations themselves, but in the concentration of leverage on the long side, making the longs a "structural soft spot."
The ripple effect of liquidations manifests in two aspects: first, the passive selling brought about by concentrated forced liquidations amplifies price fluctuations in a short time, causing adjustments that could have been digested by the market within a larger range to slide towards a "liquidation waterfall"; second, the liquidation leaderboard is dominated by a few large accounts, reinforcing the market's perception of "large players dominating the market," which in turn affects the risk appetite and position decisions of subsequent participants.
Leverage Structure and Asset Distribution
From the structure of liquidation amounts, BTC and ETH remain the main battleground for this round of liquidations. The liquidation amount for BTC contracts is roughly between $46.5 million and $57.88 million, while ETH is in the range of $33.6 million to $50.16 million, together accounting for a considerable share of the total liquidations across the network. This indicates that in an environment where funds generally tend towards risk contraction, the true bearers of leveraged exposure are, conversely, the most liquid and mature "blue-chip" assets.
BTC, on one hand, is the benchmark asset in the crypto market, widely used as a target for directional bets; on the other hand, it is also often used as a hedging tool, and in the case of overlapping hedging and speculative demands, its contract positions often remain high. Once the market turns against them, both directional longs and some hedging structures will face adjustments, naturally concentrating the liquidation amounts.
The situation for ETH is slightly different. In addition to being the second-largest asset by market capitalization, it is also deeply embedded in DeFi, staking derivatives, and various on-chain financial structures. Many funds engage in swing trading or liquidity management through ETH and its derivatives, so during price fluctuations, ETH-related contracts will also trigger a large number of forced liquidations. The differences in the tens of millions of dollars range in ETH liquidation statistics from different data sources are largely related to whether certain on-chain derivative varieties and leveraged lending liquidations are included.
Regarding the different versions of the liquidation amount ranges for BTC and ETH, it is currently difficult to provide a single "standard answer." A more reasonable approach is to view them as "structural indicators"—as long as they are in the same order of magnitude, the relative relationships presented by each platform (such as BTC being slightly higher than ETH or the two being roughly equal) are more analytically significant than a single precise value.
Amplification Effects of Platforms and Whales
At the platform level, one of the most notable cases in this round of liquidations is the forced liquidation of the BTC-USD contract on Hyperliquid: public data indicates that the largest single forced liquidation across the network occurred on this platform, amounting to several million dollars, with some statistical versions estimating the upper limit to be close to $8 million. In the absence of evidence of rule anomalies or technical issues, a more prudent explanation is that this is a high-leverage large account being liquidated under normal forced liquidation mechanisms, with a scale sufficient to "amplify" in the overall network data.
For relatively smaller or emerging platforms, a forced liquidation of several million dollars can easily gain excessive exposure in social media and community discussions, leading some sentiments to naturally shift towards questioning the platform's fairness and risk control capabilities. However, the current public information has not provided verifiable details of anomalous matching or rule changes, so a more reasonable narrative is to view it as "the concentration of individual high-leverage risks on a single platform," rather than making unverified accusations against the platform itself.
Regarding "whale losses," there have also been claims in the market about "a certain BTC OG whale losing tens of millions of dollars," which comes from a single community or data account and has not undergone broader cross-validation. Structurally, large accounts do tend to use high leverage or complex hedging strategies, and once the direction is wrong, the absolute amount of losses can far exceed those of ordinary investors, amplifying market sentiment. However, the inherent uncertainty of a single address and identity label makes it difficult to equate them directly with "insiders" or "manipulators."
The uneven distribution of liquidations is a significant feature of the current derivatives market structure. A few large accounts contribute a considerable proportion of the liquidation amounts, making prices highly sensitive to the position adjustments of these accounts. An adjustment that could have been completed in "mild fluctuations" has, due to the passive liquidation of these high-leverage positions, evolved into what appears to be a more "tragic" liquidation event from a data perspective.
Funding Environment and Sector Temperature
The asset transfers at the Grayscale level and the cooling of financing in the crypto gaming sector provide a macro funding perspective for understanding this round of liquidations. According to Arkham's monitoring, Grayscale recently transferred over $60 million worth of BTC and ETH, which may be related to product redemptions, custody adjustments, or changes in asset allocation. Regardless of the specific motivations, such large on-chain transfers indicate that institutional funds are re-evaluating their asset positions and paths.
At the same time, Decrypt reported that venture capital in the crypto gaming sector has almost completely dried up, indicating that the "storytelling to raise funds" model has clearly failed in the current funding cycle. Capital's "tolerance" for early high-risk projects has decreased, with funds preferring assets and tools that offer good liquidity and clear exit paths. In this environment, funds that originally chased high Beta in the primary market and high-risk sectors have partially shifted to the secondary market, using high-leverage derivatives to amplify returns, resulting in forced liquidations when prices experience slight disturbances.
In other words, this round of liquidations is not an isolated technical event, but occurs within the larger context of "funds repricing and risk appetite contraction," with leveraged contracts merely compressing and amplifying this macro change within the candlestick charts.
It is important to emphasize that there is currently no public evidence proving a direct, one-to-one causal relationship between Grayscale's asset transfers or the cooling of crypto gaming financing and this round of liquidations. A more prudent understanding is to view them as different facets of the same funding environment: institutions are adjusting asset paths, early-stage venture capital is contracting, and the secondary market is completing risk repricing through leverage and liquidations.
Data Differences and Transparency
Returning to the most "data-driven" contradiction of this round of events: the total liquidation amounts reported by different platforms range between approximately $150 million and $190 million, with significant discrepancies in the tens of millions of dollars for BTC and ETH sub-item data. Although the statistical results for long and short distributions are consistent in direction (more long liquidations), the specific ratios are not entirely uniform. This "mutually contradictory yet roughly aligned" data state is a direct reflection of the current lack of transparency in the derivatives market.
The reasons for the statistical discrepancies can be categorized into three main types. First, differing coverage: some data platforms focus on mainstream centralized exchanges, while others include more long-tail platforms and even some on-chain protocols, leading to a non-unified meaning of "the entire network." Second, time window differences: some statistics are based on natural days, while others use rolling 24-hour periods or specific market fluctuation segments as statistical intervals, resulting in natural differences based on the method of selection. Third, varying calculation methods: whether to exclude repeated counts of multiple liquidations from the same account, whether to merge statistics for isolated and overall liquidations, and whether to distinguish between futures and perpetual contracts, all affect the final numbers.
For institutions and professional traders, this fragmentation in statistical standards presents real challenges: it becomes difficult to construct a stable and usable "overall market leverage health indicator." When you neither know the true total leverage nor can track the detailed paths of liquidations, any risk model based on historical data can only operate in a vague world. If data distortion or gaps widen in the short term, it may lead to overestimation or underestimation of risks.
Future improvements could be gradual: exchanges could publicly disclose more granular liquidation data interfaces and specify statistical standards; third-party data providers could more transparently disclose their coverage and algorithmic logic; decentralized derivatives protocols could introduce standardized liquidation event markers on-chain to facilitate external data capture and aggregation. Only when "what exactly happened during the liquidation" can be described in a more real-time and standardized manner will market participants be able to achieve refined leverage management.
Outlook and Insights
In summary, this round of liquidations, while belonging to the medium to high range in absolute scale, is far from "epic" in nature, yet it has released important signals across three dimensions: first, the concentration of liquidations on the long side, with long liquidations amounting to approximately $90 million to $120 million, significantly higher than shorts, confirming the structural crowding of long leverage; second, the extremely uneven distribution of liquidations, with a few large accounts and the case of several million dollars in single liquidations on Hyperliquid amplifying the presence of individual risks in the overall data; third, the statistical range difference of $150 million to $190 million between data platforms reflects the information asymmetry in the derivatives market regarding liquidation data and leverage volume.
For traders, a more feasible response is not to seek a single "precise numerical truth," but to learn to identify structural risks within ranges and trends: when the amount of long liquidations is significantly higher than that of shorts, when liquidations are concentrated in mainstream blue-chip assets, and when cases of forced liquidations from leading accounts frequently top the leaderboard, it indicates that leverage has become highly concentrated on one side. In such an environment, whether for short-term or medium to long-term allocations, it is necessary to use leverage more conservatively, emphasizing position diversification and risk hedging, rather than simply overlaying the narrative of "it will eventually rise" with high leverage.
From a research perspective, this round of events also leaves room for future work. As more exchanges and on-chain protocols open up liquidation-related data interfaces, the portrayal of this round of liquidations across different dimensions may be continuously revised. All the values cited in this article—including the total range of $150 million to $190 million, the tens of millions of dollars in BTC/ETH liquidations, and the several million dollars in single liquidations on Hyperliquid—should be viewed as approximate representations under current data constraints, rather than final determinations.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits 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。
