What Does $150 Billion in Annual Derivatives Liquidations Mean for the Market?

marsbitPubblicato 2025-12-29Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-29

Introduzione

According to CoinGlass data, forced liquidations in the cryptocurrency derivatives market reached $150 billion in 2025. While seemingly alarming, this reflects a structural norm in a market where derivatives dominate price discovery. Liquidations act as a periodic cost of leverage, occurring against a backdrop of $85.7 trillion in annual derivatives trading volume. Record-high open interest, crowded long positions, and high leverage—particularly in altcoins—combined with a global risk-off sentiment triggered a major market reversal in October, resulting in over $19 billion in liquidations within days, mostly from long positions. The core issue lies in risk amplification mechanisms: while routine liquidations are absorbed by insurance funds, Automatic Deleveraging (ADL) mechanisms can exacerbate selling during extreme volatility, especially hurting neutral strategies and smaller assets. High exchange dominance (the top four control 62% of derivatives trading) intensified the contagion risk, as synchronized de-risking and similar liquidation logic led to concentrated sell-offs. Infrastructure strain on bridges and fiat channels further hampered arbitrage and liquidity. The $150 billion in yearly liquidations signifies not systemic chaos but the cost of risk transfer. While no default cascades occurred in 2025, the event highlighted structural vulnerabilities of exchange concentration, high leverage, and certain mechanisms—underscoring the need for more robust systems and rat...

Author: Blockchain Knight

According to CoinGlass data, forced liquidations in the cryptocurrency derivatives market reached $150 billion in 2025. While this appears to signal a year-long crisis on the surface, it is actually a structural norm in a market where derivatives dominate marginal pricing.

Forced liquidations due to insufficient margin function more like a periodic tax on leverage.

Against the backdrop of a total annual derivatives trading volume of $85.7 trillion (averaging $264.5 billion daily), liquidations are merely a byproduct of the market, stemming from the price discovery mechanisms dominated by perpetual swaps and basis trading.

As derivatives trading has increased, open interest has recovered from the deleveraging lows of 2022-2023. On October 7th, the nominal open interest for Bitcoin reached $235.9 billion (a time when Bitcoin's price had touched $126,000).

However, the combination of record open interest, crowded long positions, and high leverage in small-to-mid-cap altcoins,叠加 with the global risk-off sentiment triggered by Trump's tariff policy that day, sparked a market reversal.

Over October 10th-11th, forced liquidations exceeded $19 billion, with 85%-90% being long positions. Open interest plummeted by $70 billion within days and fell to $145.1 billion by year-end (still higher than at the start of the year).

The core contradiction in this volatility lies in the risk amplification mechanism. Routine liquidations rely on insurance funds to absorb losses, whereas in extreme market conditions, the Automatic Deleveraging (ADL) emergency mechanism inversely amplifies risks.

During liquidity droughts, frequent ADL triggers force the reduction of profitable short positions and market maker holdings, causing market-neutral strategies to fail. Long-tail markets were hit hardest, with Bitcoin and Ethereum falling 10%-15%, while perpetual contracts for most small-cap assets plummeted 50%-80%, creating a vicious cycle of "liquidation - price drop - further liquidation".

Exchange concentration exacerbated the contagion risk. The top four platforms, including Binance, account for 62% of global derivatives trading volume. During extreme volatility, simultaneous risk reduction and similar liquidation logic across these exchanges triggered concentrated selling.

Additionally, pressure on infrastructure like cross-chain bridges and fiat channels hindered cross-exchange fund flows, rendering cross-exchange arbitrage strategies ineffective and further widening price disparities.

Of course, the $150 billion in annual liquidations is not a symbol of chaos, but rather a record of risk aversion in the derivatives market.

The 2025 crisis did not, so far, trigger a chain reaction of defaults, but it exposed structural limitations such as reliance on a few exchanges, high leverage, and certain mechanisms—with the cost being the centralization of losses.

In the new year, we need more robust mechanisms and rational trading; otherwise, another '1011' event will recur.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat does the $150 billion in forced liquidations in the crypto derivatives market in 2025 represent, according to the article?

AThe article argues that the $150 billion in forced liquidations is not a sign of a year-long crisis, but rather a structural norm in a market where derivatives dominate marginal price discovery. It is described as a 'periodic fee levied on leverage' when margin is insufficient.

QWhat event is cited as the trigger for the major market reversal in October 7th-11th, 2025?

AThe market reversal was triggered by a combination of record-high open interest, crowded long positions, high leverage in small-to-mid cap altcoins, and global risk-off sentiment sparked by former President Trump's tariff policy announcement.

QHow did the Automatic Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism exacerbate risk during the extreme market volatility?

ADuring liquidity crunches, the ADL mechanism was frequently triggered, forcing the liquidation of profitable short positions and market maker hedges. This caused market-neutral strategies to fail and created a vicious cycle of 'liquidation - price drop - further liquidation', particularly devastating for smaller assets.

QWhat structural limitation of the crypto market did the 2025 crisis expose?

AThe crisis exposed the structural limitation of over-reliance on a few major exchanges. The top four platforms accounted for 62% of global derivatives volume, and their synchronized risk reduction and similar liquidation logic during extreme events led to concentrated selling and worsened the crash.

QDespite the massive liquidations, what positive aspect does the article highlight about the 2025 market event?

AThe article highlights that the $150 billion in liquidations is a record of risk aversion and that the 2025 crisis, so far, did not trigger a chain reaction of defaults. It served to expose structural flaws without causing a systemic credit collapse.

Letture associate

In Jinjiang, Fujian, a Storage Super Unicorn Lies Quiet

In Fujian's Jinjiang, a city known for sportswear, lies a quiet semiconductor giant: Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. (JHICC). Once a promising domestic DRAM manufacturer alongside Yangtze Memory and ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT), its journey was derailed in 2018 when the U.S. placed it on an Entity List and filed criminal charges for alleged trade secret theft. This halted production for years. A turning point came in February 2024 when a U.S. federal court found JHICC not guilty. However, it had lost crucial time. While CXMT soared to become a top-valued A-share company in 2024, JHICC, with an estimated valuation of 80 billion RMB, was just restarting. Its current output is primarily customized DDR4 chips, not the advanced DDR5/HBM demanded for AI, but it still benefits from the broader memory chip upcycle. JHICC's story is tied to Chen Zhengkun, a veteran engineer who left Micron to lead the venture. Founded in 2016 with state-backed funding, JHICC partnered with Taiwan's UMC to develop DRAM technology. Rapid progress was cut short by the U.S. actions, which Micron initiated, partly due to its heavy reliance on the Chinese market. Post-sanctions, Chen's team worked to rebuild the production line with reduced reliance on U.S. technology. According to its records, JHICC achieved small-scale production and revenue growth under immense pressure. It now focuses on the stable "niche" DRAM market (e.g., TVs, routers) with a monthly capacity of ~40,000 wafers, aiming for 60,000 by 2026. It holds over 1,000 patents but remains on the Entity List. For Jinjiang, investing in JHICC was a bold industrial leap. The local government provided unwavering financial and logistical support during the crisis, helping the company survive. JHICC has become the anchor for a growing local semiconductor cluster. Though its scale lags behind domestic peers, JHICC's persistence symbolizes a hard-won foothold in a global market long dominated by Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron. Having missed one boom, it seeks a place in the new AI-driven memory supercycle.

marsbit1 h fa

In Jinjiang, Fujian, a Storage Super Unicorn Lies Quiet

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片