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

RBK-cryptoОпубліковано о 2025-12-25Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-25

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Quantum Computers Haven't Arrived Yet, but Satoshi's 1.1 Million Bitcoin Pose the First Problem

A zero-knowledge proof tool can help modern Bitcoin wallets migrate assets before quantum attacks in milliseconds. However, approximately 1.1 million bitcoins mined by Satoshi Nakamoto before 2012 are fundamentally unprotected by such solutions, as they reside in older P2PK addresses lacking the hierarchical structure required for this cryptographic rescue. This exposes a critical divide: post-2012 HD wallets can potentially "upgrade" signatures using tools like Project Eleven's, while early coins are cryptographically isolated. The community faces a political, not technical, dilemma with four contentious options: 1) Let quantum attackers seize the coins, risking market instability; 2) Hard fork to freeze vulnerable addresses, seen as violating property rights; 3) Implement extreme spending limits to slow any attack; 4) Redistribute "orphaned" coins, breaking immutability. Each solution threatens a core Bitcoin tenet. The market is already pricing in this governance risk, as evidenced by institutional divestment citing uncertainty. The true crisis isn't the arrival of quantum computing, but the community's inability to reconcile its foundational principles with an existential technological shift.

marsbit6 хв тому

Quantum Computers Haven't Arrived Yet, but Satoshi's 1.1 Million Bitcoin Pose the First Problem

marsbit6 хв тому

Where Will the Next Bull Market's Main Battlefield Be? The Answer Lies in These Two Types of Assets

Matt Hougan, Bitwise's CIO, identifies the fusion of traditional finance and on-chain finance as the core driver for the next crypto bull market. He expects this cycle, propelled by real-world utility and global finance adoption, to be the largest yet, centered on stablecoins, asset tokenization, 24/7 trading, instant settlement, and institutional DeFi growth. The article outlines two primary investment approaches tied to this trend. The first focuses on native crypto applications with strong revenues and sustainable tokenomics, exemplified by Hyperliquid (HYPE). Its Layer-1 chain is gaining significant trading volume from traditional assets like oil and equities. Its model of using 99% of revenues for token buybacks is a key strength. The second approach targets established traditional firms building at scale on crypto rails, like Robinhood. The launch of its Robinhood Chain, enabling global trading of tokenized stocks and DeFi activities, represents a major move towards this fusion. The author also notes other serious contenders like Coinbase, Figure, BlackRock, and JPMorgan. Ultimately, the thesis is that the most profound success will come when blockchain technology seamlessly integrates into finance, becoming invisible to end-users. Investors are advised to position ahead of this convergence.

Foresight News11 хв тому

Where Will the Next Bull Market's Main Battlefield Be? The Answer Lies in These Two Types of Assets

Foresight News11 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit18 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit18 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit27 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit27 хв тому

In Order to Buy Investigational Weight-Loss Drugs, a Group of Americans Learn to Use Bitcoin Payments

To purchase the experimental weight-loss drug retatrutide, Americans like Zach are turning to Bitcoin despite initial skepticism. Retatrutide, an unapproved triple-agonist from Eli Lilly, offers significant weight loss but is inaccessible through U.S. channels. Buying from domestic resellers costs around $3,600 annually, whereas Zach found a Chinese seller offering a year’s supply for $240—with Bitcoin as the only payment option. This price disparity led him to learn cryptocurrency for the transaction. Online sellers of such “research chemicals” or peptides often use Bitcoin because traditional payment systems avoid the regulatory and legal risks. Chainalysis data shows crypto payments to grey-market peptide sellers reached $32 million in Q1 2026, suggesting an annualized volume exceeding $100 million, though this remains a fraction of the estimated $1-3 billion black market. The trend intersects with communities like DeSciNYC, where events on peptides draw crowds interested in biohacking and longevity, indicating shared interests between crypto and wellness circles. However, potential FDA moves to legalize certain peptides could shift demand away from the black market and reduce the need for crypto payments.

marsbit29 хв тому

In Order to Buy Investigational Weight-Loss Drugs, a Group of Americans Learn to Use Bitcoin Payments

marsbit29 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот