Average Crypto Trader Losses Reached $500 Million Per Day in 2025

RBK-cryptoPublished on 2025-12-25Last updated on 2025-12-25

Abstract

According to a Coinglass report, the total volume of forced liquidations of margin-based trading positions on crypto exchanges neared $150 billion in 2025. The estimated average daily liquidation volume throughout the year ranged from $400 million to $500 million. A record-breaking single-day liquidation event occurred on October 11, accounting for nearly 15% of the annual total with nearly $20 billion in futures positions liquidated. This was triggered by US President Donald Trump's announcement of new 100% tariffs on Chinese imports and export controls on critical software, which sparked fears of a new trade war and caused a sharp shift towards risk-off sentiment. Bitcoin and Ethereum fell by 10-15% at their peak, while many altcoins crashed by 80% or more. The crash exposed key market vulnerabilities, including reliance on opaque liquidation mechanisms, fragile infrastructure under peak load, and a lack of effective circuit breakers common on traditional exchanges. Unlike the Terra (LUNA) collapse in 2022, this event did not lead to a cascade of institutional investor defaults, as the risks were concentrated in specific strategies and assets rather than being systemic.

In 2025, the total volume of forced liquidations of margin-based trading positions on cryptocurrency exchanges approached $150 billion, according to a Coinglass report. The estimated average daily liquidation rate throughout the year ranged from $400 million to $500 million.

This refers to the nominal value of positions including leverage (a $100 position with 10x leverage counts as $1000 in the total loss amount), but even with this adjustment, the scale of the losses remains impressive.

Nearly 15% of the annual liquidation volume occurred in a single day—on the night of October 11th, when the crypto market experienced the largest cascade of futures position liquidations in history, with a total volume of nearly $20 billion. This set an absolute record for the volume of forcibly closed trading positions on cryptocurrency exchanges.

The event occurred against the backdrop of U.S. President Donald Trump announcing new 100% tariffs on imports from China, as well as export controls on critical software. This sharply increased expectations of a new trade war, as Coinglass writes, which forced markets into a "risk-off" mode, meaning a retreat from high-risk assets, including Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Experts note that the scale of the consequences was determined not only by external factors but also by the structure of the leverage used and the functioning of liquidation mechanisms. During exchange overload, Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanisms were triggered, and trades were executed at unfavorable prices, causing losses even for profitable traders.

Bitcoin and Ethereum lost 10–15% at their peak, while many altcoins collapsed by 80% or more.

The Coinglass report stated that the crash of that day revealed key market vulnerabilities: reliance on opaque liquidation mechanisms, the fragility of infrastructure under peak loads, and the lack of effective circuit breakers that exist on traditional exchanges.

Unlike the crash of the Terra (LUNA) project in 2022, this collapse did not lead to a series of defaults by institutional investors. The risks were not systemic and were concentrated in specific strategies and assets, noted Coinglass.

How the Base Blockchain Ecosystem is Structured. Top 5 Applications

AI Outperformed Humans in a Crypto Trading Tournament. What Were the Results

Miner "Capitulation" Called a Bullish Factor for Bitcoin. Why

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

Why do you always lose money on Polymarket? Because you bet on news, while the pros study the rules. This article explains how top traders ("che tou") profit by meticulously analyzing market rules, not just predicting events. Polymarket, a prediction market platform, often sees disputes over event outcomes due to ambiguous rule wording. For instance, a market asking "Who will be the leader of Venezuela by the end of 2026?" was misinterpreted by many who bet on Delcy Rodríguez, assuming she held power. However, the rules specified "officially holds" as the formally appointed, sworn-in individual. Since Nicolás Maduro was still recognized as president officially, he won the market—even being in prison. To resolve such disputes, Polymarket uses a decentralized arbitration system via UMA protocol. The process involves: 1. Proposal: Anyone can propose a market outcome by staking 750 USDC, earning 5 USDC if unchallenged. 2. Dispute: A 2-hour window allows challenges with a 750 USDC stake; successful challengers earn 250 USDC. 3. Discussion: A 48-hour period on UMA Discord for evidence and debate. 4. Voting: UMA token holders vote in two 24-hour phases (blind then public). Outcomes require >65% consensus and 5M tokens voted; otherwise, four re-votes occur before Polymarket intervention. 5. Settlement: Results are final and automatic. Unlike traditional courts, Polymarket’s system lacks separation between arbitrators and stakeholders—voters often hold market positions, creating conflicts of interest. This leads to herd mentality in discussions and non-transparent outcomes without explanatory rulings, preventing precedent formation. Thus, success on Polymarket hinges on deep rule interpretation, not just event prediction, exploiting gaps between reality and contractual wording.

marsbit4m ago

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

marsbit4m ago

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI company, has initiated its first external funding round, aiming to raise at least $300 million at a valuation of no less than $10 billion. This move marks a significant shift from its founder Liang Wenfeng’s previous idealistic stance of rejecting external capital to maintain independence. Despite strong financial backing from its parent company, quantitative trading firm幻方量化 (Huanfang Quant), which provided an estimated $700 million in revenue in 2025 alone, DeepSeek faces mounting challenges. Key issues include a 15-month gap in major model updates, delays in its flagship V4 release, and the loss of several core researchers to competitors offering significantly higher compensation. The company is also undergoing a strategic pivot by migrating its infrastructure from NVIDIA’s CUDA to Huawei’s Ascend platform, a move aligned with China’s push for technological self-reliance amid U.S. export controls. However, DeepSeek lags behind rivals like智谱AI and MiniMax—both now publicly listed—in areas such as product ecosystem, multimodal capabilities, and commercialization. The funding round, though relatively small in scale, is seen as a way to establish a market-validated valuation anchor, making employee stock options more competitive and facilitating talent retention. It also signals DeepSeek’s transition from a pure research-oriented organization to a commercially-driven player in the global AI ecosystem.

marsbit42m ago

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

marsbit42m ago

Warsh, Trump's Next 'Scapegoat' at the Federal Reserve?

Kevin Warsh, a nominee for the Federal Reserve chair, faces a challenging confirmation hearing amid political pressure from former President Donald Trump to implement immediate and significant interest rate cuts. Warsh has proposed reforms including reducing the Fed’s communication frequency and shrinking its $6.7 trillion balance sheet. However, market expectations for rate cuts remain limited, creating tension with Trump’s demands. Warsh’s stance has shifted over time, from hawkish during the financial crisis to more dovish recently, citing AI-driven productivity gains. His confirmation is further complicated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis’s threat to block the nomination unless an investigation into current Chair Jerome Powell is dropped. Trump has warned of firing Powell if he doesn’t leave on time. Observers note that Warsh risks becoming a "scapegoat"—either by yielding to political pressure and fueling inflation, or by resisting and facing Trump’s backlash. His ties to Trump’s circle and Wall Street support may aid his nomination, but his ability to balance political demands with the Fed’s credibility remains uncertain. Historical precedents, like Arthur Burns’s compliance with Nixon, highlight the risks of political interference in monetary policy.

marsbit47m ago

Warsh, Trump's Next 'Scapegoat' at the Federal Reserve?

marsbit47m ago

Plunging 10% Then Surging: Weekend Crude Oil Market Watch

Following a 10% plunge, oil prices surged over the weekend as geopolitical tensions in the Strait of Hormuz escalated dramatically. The initial market optimism, driven by the strait’s brief reopening on Friday, quickly reversed on Saturday when Iran reinstated restrictions and fired on vessels, halting nearly all traffic. In response, oil contracts rose approximately 4.52%, while S&P futures fell nearly 0.8%. U.S. President Trump alternated between diplomatic gestures—sending an envoy for talks—and threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure if no deal was reached. Iran rejected further negotiations, fearing a U.S. attack before the midweek ceasefire deadline. This triggered another spike in oil, surpassing Saturday’s highs, and further pressured equity markets. Crypto-related stocks underperformed significantly. Market optimism is expected to be punished, and the week ahead hinges on whether Iran maintains its refusal to negotiate.

marsbit55m ago

Plunging 10% Then Surging: Weekend Crude Oil Market Watch

marsbit55m ago

6,000 CEOs Admit AI 'Did Nothing', Yet It Was Used to Lay Off 40,000 People in Q1 This Year

A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) surveying 6000 executives across four countries reveals that nearly 90% of businesses report AI has had "no measurable impact" on employment or productivity over the past three years. Despite global AI investments exceeding $250 billion in 2024, only 12% of CEOs reported both cost reductions and revenue growth from AI. Contrastingly, in Q1 2026, the industry saw 78,557 tech job cuts, with 47.9% attributed to AI and automation. Critics label this contradiction an "AI version of the Solow Paradox," referencing the visible lack of AI's effect in productivity data amid widespread adoption. While some leaders, like Anthropic’s CEO, predict AI will eliminate half of entry-level white-collar jobs, others accuse firms of "AI washing"—using AI as a pretext for layoffs originally planned due to over-hiring or weak demand. However, companies like IBM and Cognizant are bucking the trend by increasing entry-level hiring and retraining staff to work alongside AI. Economists suggest a "J-curve" effect may be underway, where initial productivity stagnation is followed by significant gains, as was seen with IT in the 1990s. The transition remains challenging, with true productivity improvements expected within 6–12 months.

marsbit57m ago

6,000 CEOs Admit AI 'Did Nothing', Yet It Was Used to Lay Off 40,000 People in Q1 This Year

marsbit57m ago

Trading

Spot

Futures

Average Crypto Trader Losses Reached $500 Million Per Day in 2025

Abstract

Related Questions

Related Reads