Bitcoin slides 4.5% as Asia session weakness amplifies $652M liquidations

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-12-16Last updated on 2025-12-16

Abstract

On December 16th, Bitcoin (BTC) dropped 4.5% to $85.7k, influenced by weakness in Asian equity markets. The crypto market saw $652 million in liquidations, with Ethereum experiencing more liquidations than Bitcoin. Analysts noted that the sell-off was amplified by high-leverage positions rather than spot selling, causing a cascade of forced liquidations. Despite a minor rebound, the market remains volatile. Rising Open Interest and the Estimated Leverage Ratio indicate increased speculative activity and potential for further downside. The $84k support level is at risk, and a sustained recovery is not yet evident, with the market phase still in a transitional and bearish state.

On the 16th of December, Bitcoin [BTC] dropped 4.5%, falling to $85.7k in the early hours of trading.

At press time, the Asian equities moved lower, with the Nikkei 225 falling 784 points, or 1.56%. This decline also weighed on the cryptocurrency market, where the total capitalization dropped 4.4% before staging a minor rebound over the past few hours.

In the short term, the $85.7k level was defended, and Bitcoin managed to bounce higher to $86.5k. However, the market remains fearful and volatile. CoinGlass data revealed that the past 24 hours saw $652 million liquidated in the crypto.

Surprisingly, Ethereum [ETH] saw more liquidations than Bitcoin. It was $233.5 million ($205.1 million in longs) for Ethereum liquidations compared to Bitcoin’s $184.8 million ($168.8 million in longs).

In a post on CryptoQuant Insights, XWIN Research Japan noted that liquidations were not primarily driven by spot selling. Rather, the build-up of high-leverage liquidations underneath key short-term support levels might be amplifying the drop.

Liquidated long positions are forced to sell, creating taker sell orders that can trigger more liquidations, forming a cascade. They argued that this slide was a healthy reset, flushing out extra leverage and setting conditions up for a stable, spot-driven recovery.

AMBCrypto found that traders should expect more drawdown in the near term.

Why BTC prices might see more volatility

Since the 7th of December, the BTC Open Interest (OI) has been rising. Although it dipped in recent hours, the overall trend has remained upward throughout the past week.

Similarly, the Estimated Leverage Ratio (ELR) metric also saw a sharp uptick from the 10th of December. The metric measures the exchange’s OI divided by its coin reserve.

The rapid uptick in ELR suggested more OI, or fewer BTC in Exchange Reserves, or both.

AMBCrypto analyzed the 7‐day Moving Average of Exchange Netflows and confirmed that, on average, Bitcoin has been flowing out of exchanges over the past month. This trend helps explain the behavior of the ELR.

Meanwhile, rising OI despite falling price points to increased short‐selling activity. It also raises the risk of sharp liquidity hunts in both directions, adding to potential volatility in the days ahead.

Concerns remain that the $84k local support may not hold, driven not only by volatility fears but by broader market pressures.

On-chain analyst Axel Adler noted that the market phase index remained in the 0.38 territory. This reads as a “preservation of the transitional regime“. The selling pressure has not intensified, but there has been no sustainable recovery either.

The indicator must pick up over the 0.43 level to signal market strength. Until then, traders and investors can maintain a bearish bias.


Final Thoughts

  • The Asia session saw equities slip lower on the back of investor fears, which also saw a Bitcoin drop of close to 4.5%.
  • The BTC market remained in control of the sellers, and a sustainable recovery was not underway.

Related Reads

Why Does Hyperliquid Earn Less Than Coinbase?

Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange, processes near-Nasdaq-level perpetual trading volumes but captures significantly lower fees compared to centralized platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood. While Hyperliquid cleared $205.6 billion in notional volume over 30 days, it generated only $80.3 million in fees—an effective take rate of ~3.9 bps. In contrast, Coinbase and Robinhood achieve take rates of ~35.5 bps and ~33.5 bps, respectively, by operating as retail brokers that monetize multiple layers: distribution, balances, subscriptions, and order flow. This gap stems from a structural difference: Hyperliquid positions itself as a low-fee *market layer* (like Nasdaq), providing high-throughput execution and清算 infrastructure, while brokers like Coinbase control user relationships and extract value through higher-margin activities. Hyperliquid’s model includes permissionless distributor frontends (Builder Codes) and product deployment (HIP-3), which drive ecosystem growth but also create long-term fee compression risks by outsourcing high-value distribution. To defend its economics, Hyperliquid is taking steps to retain distribution control, integrate HIP-3 markets natively, and introduce balance-driven revenue streams like USDH (a native stablecoin with 50% reserve收益 sharing) and portfolio margin (10% interest fee on borrows). These moves aim to shift its model from pure exchange-level execution toward a hybrid approach that captures broker-like profit pools—without sacrificing its core infrastructure advantages. The key challenge remains balancing open ecosystem growth with tighter economic integration to avoid being commoditized as a wholesale execution venue.

marsbit10m ago

Why Does Hyperliquid Earn Less Than Coinbase?

marsbit10m ago

Public Chains 2025: The Bustle Belongs to the Casino, the Desolation to the Ecosystem

The 2025 public blockchain landscape reveals a stark divide between hype and reality, with a severe concentration of value and widespread "zombification" of projects. Analysis of DeFiLlama's on-chain fee data exposes a critical structural issue: the crypto space is dominated by a "profit concentration and long-tail zombie" era. Notable examples highlight this crisis. Algorand, a chain with a $1 billion market cap and advanced technology, generated a mere $17 in daily fees, while Cardano, a top-10 asset, saw only around $6,000. These "classic chains" are likened to empty, expensive cities with no real economic activity. The biggest value capturers are not the most technologically elegant chains. Tron leads with $1.24 million in daily fees, succeeding as a low-cost payment rail for USDT transfers—crypto's only true mass-adoption use case. Solana ($600k daily) thrives as a high-frequency casino for meme coins and speculation, and Base ($105k daily) demonstrates that distribution (via Coinbase) is more critical than pure technology. The only validated business models generating significant fees are low-cost payments, high-frequency speculation, and, to a lesser extent, Ethereum's asset settlement layer. The VC-driven model is failing. New chains like Sui, Sei, and Starknet, which raised hundreds of millions, show a severe disconnect between their high valuations and meager daily fee revenue (ranging from $320 to $12,000). Their lifecycle often follows a "pump and dump" pattern: VC funding -> airdrop farming -> token listing -> user exodus -> collapsed on-chain activity. The industry suffers from a massive oversupply of block space with a dire lack of killer applications. The article concludes that investors must shift from valuing narratives to scrutinizing financials. They should avoid "zombie coins" with high valuations and negligible fees, focus on chains with organic, fee-generating demand, acknowledge that distribution and community are now more valuable than pure tech, and see through the VC subsidy game. This is a necessary market correction; only by paying for real, generated value—not promised future stories—can the industry achieve healthy growth.

比推37m ago

Public Chains 2025: The Bustle Belongs to the Casino, the Desolation to the Ecosystem

比推37m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of M (M) are presented below.

活动图片