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

RBK-cryptoОпубликовано 2025-12-25Обновлено 2025-12-25

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat was the average daily liquidation amount for crypto traders in 2025 according to the Coinglass report?

AThe average daily liquidation amount ranged from $400 million to $500 million in 2025.

QWhat event on October 11 triggered the largest cascade of futures liquidations in crypto market history?

AUS President Donald Trump announced new 100% tariffs on imports from China and export controls on critical software, which sharply increased expectations of a new trade war.

QWhat were the maximum losses for Bitcoin and Ethereum during the market crash described in the article?

ABitcoin and Ethereum lost 10-15% at their maximum, while many altcoins collapsed by 80% or more.

QWhat key market vulnerabilities were exposed by the crash according to the Coinglass report?

AThe key vulnerabilities were dependence on opaque liquidation mechanisms, infrastructure fragility during peak loads, and the lack of effective circuit breakers that exist on traditional exchanges.

QHow did this market crash differ from the Terra (LUNA) collapse in 2022 in terms of institutional impact?

AUnlike the Terra collapse, this crash did not lead to a series of defaults by institutional investors. The risks were not systemic and were concentrated in specific strategies and assets.

Похожее

Kalshi-CFTC Fight In New Mexico Could Shape Prediction Market Rules

A jurisdictional battle between the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the state of New Mexico over the regulation of prediction markets could set national rules for the industry. At issue is who polices platforms like Kalshi, with the CFTC asserting federal oversight and New Mexico arguing state gaming and consumer protection laws apply, especially for contracts resembling wagers on events like elections or sports. The outcome will determine if prediction markets can scale nationally under a clear federal framework or face a fragmented, state-by-state regulatory landscape. This dispute is significant for the crypto-adjacent trading community, which often engages with these speculative event markets. A clearer rulebook could boost mainstream adoption, liquidity, and integration with crypto infrastructure, while a state-led challenge could stifle growth. The case is particularly sensitive for sports-related contracts, where the line between financial markets and gambling blurs. Ultimately, this legal fight will shape whether prediction markets become a scalable national product or remain constrained by jurisdictional conflicts.

bitcoinist14 мин. назад

Kalshi-CFTC Fight In New Mexico Could Shape Prediction Market Rules

bitcoinist14 мин. назад

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbit5 ч. назад

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

marsbit5 ч. назад

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手5 ч. назад

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

链捕手5 ч. назад

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

Nvidia's recent announcement to issue at least $20 billion in senior notes, despite holding a strong cash position with over $48.6 billion in free cash flow last quarter, is not a sign of financial need. Instead, it represents a strategic move to leverage its high credit rating (recently upgraded to AA by S&P) to secure low-cost, long-term debt. This capital will support long-term AI infrastructure investments, data centers, R&D, supply chain prepayments, and strategic investments, while allowing the company to continue aggressive shareholder returns through stock buybacks and dividends. The decision reflects a mature capital management strategy: using debt to finance long-term growth assets is more efficient and less dilutive to shareholders than equity financing. It signals that Nvidia, like other tech giants (Alphabet, Meta, Amazon), is entering a new phase of heavy AI capital expenditure, shifting from a pure growth story to a story about capital allocation, credit strength, and long-term ecosystem positioning. The key question for investors is whether Nvidia can maintain its high cash flow generation and ensure that returns from these AI investments justify the cost of capital over the long term. The bond issuance amplifies its expansion capabilities but also ties its valuation more closely to the broader AI investment cycle's sustainability and profitability.

marsbit6 ч. назад

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

marsbit6 ч. назад

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

Liberland's congress has voted to remove Technology Secretary Dorian Stern Vukotić, following a resolution accusing him of attempting to hijack the Liberland.org domain, removing administrative multisig protections, blocking the president from voting, and launching unauthorized tokens. The incident serves as a case study in blockchain governance, highlighting risks that go beyond smart contracts to include control over domains, admin keys, and off-chain authority. For the crypto industry, it underscores the need to scrutinize decentralization claims against operational realities, where a small group can still compromise governance. The story reflects a broader market shift where infrastructure security and governance are becoming as critical as price action. Editorial framing should treat the development as a verified information signal about governance risks, avoiding overstatement of Liberland's legal status and leaving room for follow-up evidence.

bitcoinist6 ч. назад

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

bitcoinist6 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow