In the past 24 hours, the cryptocurrency derivatives market has once again become a liquidation arena. On April 24, 2026, CoinGlass statistics showed that the total amount of liquidations across all contracts was approximately $171 million, with long liquidations amounting to about $101 million and short liquidations around $70.436 million. Approximately 82,120 traders were liquidated within the same time window, with both long and short positions being washed out simultaneously.

In this round of $171 million collective liquidations, the largest single liquidation occurred on the BTC-USD trading pair on Hyperliquid, amounting to approximately $3.5809 million. Compared to the smaller fragmented liquidations on other platforms, this amount is enough to designate Hyperliquid as one of the most intense battlegrounds for high-leverage contracts currently: if a single position has too much leverage and there is slight volatility, it can amplify to millions of dollars in losses within minutes.

Even more tension arises as on-chain and platform data simultaneously show that the "leverage game" on Hyperliquid is not a one-sided bet. On April 24, glassnode pointed out on platform X that over the past two months, large perpetual contract accounts on Hyperliquid have continuously increased their long positions, "constantly making long bets on breakout intervals," with long positions steadily rising, reflecting strong bullish sentiment among a group of whale-level traders. In stark contrast, the whale address 0x58bro stands on the short side: around April 23, it accumulated deposits of 3,811 ETH (approximately $9.03 million) to Binance, leaving only about 0.5 ETH on-chain, but maintaining a 25x leverage short position on ETH and a 40x leverage short position on BTC on Hyperliquid, yielding total profits of approximately $33 million, a typical case of a "short-selling whale making a fortune."

Meanwhile, new funds are actively joining the long side. On the evening of April 24, Lookonchain detected that a newly created address 0x0b8a sold 75 ETH on Hyperliquid, cashing out approximately $174,000, and then opened a 5x leverage long position, going long on approximately 9.19 million APE with a nominal position of about $1.03 million. Under the squeeze of large whales adding to their long positions while short whales profit from high leverage, a large number of smaller-volume accounts with weaker risk tolerance (often seen as retail funds) are also being swept into this long-short game — behind the $171 million liquidation figure is a concentrated snapshot of this extreme leverage hedging on Hyperliquid.

$171 million in liquidations: Contract market out of control

In the past 24 hours, the approximate $171 million in liquidations across the network essentially represents a wave of forced liquidations with clear "de-leveraging" characteristics: about $101 million from long positions and approximately $70.436 million from short positions, with longs accounting for about 60% and shorts about 40%, presenting a typical structure of liquidations on both sides. Approximately 82,120 traders were liquidated within the same time window, indicating that this was not a single-point risk event for a few large holders but a widespread leverage reset.

Structurally, the scale of long liquidations is significantly higher than that of shorts, indicating that a thicker layer of long leveraged positions had accumulated over the previous period, and a concentrated downturn in price could trigger a chain reaction of liquidations; however, shorts were also significantly swept away in this window, meaning that the market experienced a directional reversal or a range of sharp fluctuations in a short time, with both sides enduring a "forced liquidation" double whammy rather than a unilateral squeeze.

In terms of distribution by type, the disclosed data shows that the amount of liquidations related to BTC was approximately $2.0702 million, while liquidations related to ETH were about $1.7111 million, which, compared to the total scale of $171 million, is not high, indicating that the liquidation funds were not only concentrated in mainstream assets but that many long-tail assets with high leverage also participated in this de-leveraging process. There may be discrepancies among different statistical bases, but it is clear that the liquidation wave has overflowed from mainstream assets to a wider variety of assets.

During this entire strong liquidation wave, the most indicative signal comes from Hyperliquid: the maximum single liquidation occurred on its BTC-USD contract, amounting to about $3.5809 million. A single liquidation of over $3 million generally indicates that the corresponding account had extremely limited remaining margin at the time of liquidation, likely accumulating with high leverage or a large nominal position; once price volatility exceeds expectations, the liquidation engine throws millions of dollars' worth of strong liquidation orders to the market in a short time, directly applying pressure to the instantaneous liquidity of that trading pair.

This resonates with previous on-chain observations by glassnode: over the past two months, large perpetual contract traders on Hyperliquid have continually been betting on bullish breakouts, with long positions steadily increasing, showing strong bullish sentiment. In such a positional structure, when the entire network enters a collective de-leveraging phase, the occurrence of a single $3.58 million liquidation on the BTC-USD battleground seems more like a concentrated liquidation of previously long-accumulated high-risk long positions during a singular volatility period, rather than an isolated incident.

On the other hand, Hyperliquid's own risk appetite has also been amplified by this wave of liquidations. On April 24, concurrent statistics show that Ethereum's 24-hour transaction fee income was about $2.7 million, while Hyperliquid's 24-hour fee income was approximately $1.7 million, nearing half of Ethereum's revenue level, corresponding to extremely high intensity of contract trading activity. In such a trading environment:

● On one side are veteran short-selling whales like 0x58bro, who still hold a 25x leverage short position on ETH and a 40x leverage short position on BTC on Hyperliquid;
● On the other side is the new address 0x0b8a, which has leveraged 5 times to long approximately 9.19 million APE with a nominal position of about $1.03 million;

Both sides are betting directionally with high leverage and high volatility assets. With the maximum single liquidation occurring on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD and its not low fee income level, it indicates that in this round of overall network de-leveraging process, Hyperliquid is not just a "participant," but one of the main contract battlegrounds: high leverage, high turnover, and strong risk appetite together make it easier for funds here to be rapidly pushed towards the edge of strong liquidation during a singular volatility.

Signal of whales increasing long positions over two months

On April 24, glassnode mentioned in its post on platform X that, over the past two months, whale accounts on Hyperliquid have been continually "betting on long breakout intervals," with their long positions showing a steadily increasing trend. Odaily Planet Daily, TechFlow Deep Tide, and Foresight News subsequently reported on this observation. Glassnode interprets this as a strong bullish inclination displayed by large traders overall in a market dominated by perpetual contracts like Hyperliquid.

The so-called "betting on long breakout intervals" essentially means continuing to add long positions when the price breaks upward from a consolidation range, betting on trend continuation. For large perpetual traders with considerable capital, such strategies typically mean: instead of taking a substantial position all at once, they accumulate more at multiple breakout points, allowing the overall long exposure to be continuously expanded over time. Glassnode's statement about "long positions steadily increasing over the past two months" corresponds to this behavior of continuously accumulating long risk exposure along the trend.

Structurally, this ongoing accumulation mode not only strengthens the bullish sentiment on Hyperliquid, making liquidity and depth during price rises more concentrated among funds “adding to their positions in the direction of the trend”; but it also raises the "congestion" on the long side — the more large accounts stand in the same direction, once the market trends reverse, sell pressure and passive liquidation will overlap significantly, creating conditions for a cascading liquidation.

When observing this alongside the current liquidation data: As of April 24, the market has seen approximately $171 million in liquidations over the past 24 hours, with long liquidations at about $101 million, exceeding shorts' approximately $70.436 million, affecting around 82,120 traders, with the largest single liquidation occurring on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD trading pair, amounting to about $3.5809 million. This data does not directly prove that "whale longs have been concentrated liquidated," but at least indicates that on the long side, there has been more obvious pressure for passive liquidation during the overall de-leveraging process, with Hyperliquid at the center of this round of volatility.

If we combine the "steady accumulation of longs" as described by glassnode with the current size of long liquidations, we can reasonably infer a possible path:
● In the earlier stages of price increases and breakout phases, large accounts on Hyperliquid continuously increased their long positions, raising the systemic long leverage level;
● When the price reverses due to volatility, some highly leveraged long positions that were chasing the price up will be triggered first, resulting in the first wave of liquidations;
● In extreme scenarios, if the price decreases further, the remaining whale longs may also be forced to reduce their positions or even be triggered further, exacerbating the second and third rounds of liquidation pressure.

The currently available data cannot precisely distinguish the specific leverage multiples and stop-loss arrangements of whales, so the aforementioned chain reaction is more of a potential evolution path for structural risk rather than an established fact that has already occurred. However, it is certain that in a market that has been “betting on long breakout intervals” by whales for two months, as the market enters a stage of concentrated liquidations of $171 million, the congestion of long positions and the potential liquidation pressure on the long side deserve particular attention.

A new wallet's leveraged gamble on APE

In the environment where bullish sentiment is being continuously lifted by whales, a brand-new address chose a more extreme entry method.

On April 24, 2026, Lookonchain detected a new wallet address 0x0b8a appearing on Hyperliquid: this address first sold 75 ETH on the platform, cashing out approximately $174,000; immediately afterward, instead of opting for diversified targets or phased position building, it used this capital as chips to directly open a 5x leverage long contract on Hyperliquid, going long approximately 9.19 million APE, with a corresponding nominal position of about $1.03 million.

Structurally, this is a typical way to "leverage a six-figure exposure with a medium principal": using less than $200,000 in equity, combined with approximately 5x leverage, exposing oneself to price fluctuations of over a million dollars on a single target. Compared to long-time whales who can readily handle tens of millions of dollars on-chain, the absolute size of such a position is not large, but given the mismatch between the capital size and risk tolerance, it illustrates a more aggressive risk preference when smaller funds enter the market — attempting to quickly amplify profits through high leverage instead of diversifying volatility over multiple targets and time frames.

Putting this APE long back into Hyperliquid's current overall structure, the key issue lies not in whether the 5x leverage "is too high," but in the environment it is combined with: on one hand, glassnode pointed out that over the past two months, large perpetual traders on Hyperliquid have been continuously betting on long breakout intervals, with long positions steadily increasing and a strong bullish sentiment; on the other hand, in the past 24 hours, the entire market has already seen about $171 million in concentrated liquidations, with long liquidations accounting for approximately $101 million, and the largest single liquidation occurring on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD trading pair.

In this context, the actions of new address 0x0b8a can very likely be seen as a follow-on bet to the "whale long consensus": observing that large funds are continuously adding longs in the market, thus using leverage to amplify a single directional exposure, rather than investing more effort in position management and risk hedging. What the outcome will be, the on-chain data has not yet provided an answer, but it is clear that:

● Once APE experiences a greater-than-expected short-term retracement, this concentrated bet on a single asset with 5x leverage may rapidly trigger strong liquidations during sharp fluctuations;
● With the long side already evidently congested, if market volatility further expands, positions like 0x0b8a's "small-to-medium funds + high leverage + one-sided following" are very likely to become the most vulnerable link in the liquidation chain.

In other words, on the stage of whale longs continuously increasing their holdings, 0x0b8a does not represent new "smart money" but rather seems like a leveraged follower being pushed into the market by emotions — and in a script of a $171 million liquidation day, such roles often sit closest to the strong liquidation line.

A decision by short-selling whale to pocket $33 million

Unlike 0x0b8a, who was pushed into the market by emotions, on the other end stands a "veteran short" who has already secured enormous paper gains during this round of volatility — whale 0x58bro.

According to Onchainlens monitoring, around April 23, 2026, 0x58bro added 2,791 ETH to Binance within 24 hours, increasing its total deposit to this platform to 3,811 ETH, valued at about $9.03 million at that time. More importantly, after completing this large deposit, the address had only about 0.5 ETH remaining on-chain, which means it almost "emptied" its publicly visible ETH spot position in one move, transferring its chips entirely to a centralized exchange account.

While the spot was almost cleared, 0x58bro did not choose to reduce leverage exposure. On the contrary, he still held 25x leveraged short positions on ETH and 40x leveraged short positions on BTC on Hyperliquid, with total profits of approximately $33 million on that platform. This indicates a participant who is profiting through high leverage shorting BTC and ETH, positioned at significant paper gains during the current volatility cycle.

Structurally, this choice of "clearing on-chain spot + maintaining high leveraged shorts" means he actively abandoned the on-chain spot buffer, concentrating risk and leverage on Hyperliquid's perpetual contracts; depositing all 3,811 ETH into Binance may serve to prepare for future liquidations or hedging, while also giving him the flexibility to manage chips on a centralized platform — whether to prepare to buy more at lower prices or continue to amplify directional bets at higher leverage is not confirmable by outside observers; they can only see that he has consolidated his "bullets" into two battlegrounds: the Binance spot/account and Hyperliquid's high leveraged shorts.

Putting 0x58bro back within Hyperliquid's overarching structure highlights the internal fracture in views on funds: on one side is the group of whale bulls who have been increasing their longs and displaying strong bullish sentiment as described by glassnode over the past two months; on the other side are short-selling whales like 0x58bro who maintain high leverage shorts of 25x on ETH and 40x on BTC, while holding approximately $33 million in paper profits. Both sides are using high leverage to express their extreme judgments on future market direction, reflecting their opposing risk appetites for the same contracts, and using the same liquidity pool.

Against the backdrop of a $171 million liquidation day, this internally highly divided structure, where both sides have leveraged positions to high levels, is itself a breeder of high volatility: bull whales continuously increase their positions, while short whales choose to continue "hanging in the air" amidst huge floating profits; any misstep or rhythm miscalculation from either side can swiftly amplify into a new wave of liquidations and reverse squeezes through the leverage chain of Hyperliquid. 0x58bro's current decision is not just a question of retaining or exiting his $33 million paper profit, but also a barometer of whether the short side dares to face the strong bull directly in this levered battlefield.

Ethereum transaction fees surpass Hyperliquid

From the income perspective, there is a clear comparison of the intensity of the battleground amidst the intense fluctuations. On April 24, 2026, Odaily Planet Daily cited Artemis data stating that Ethereum's 24-hour transaction fee income was approximately $2.7 million, while Hyperliquid's 24-hour fee income was around $1.7 million. Ethereum still captures a larger share of "toll fees," but Hyperliquid has secured around 60% of Ethereum's fee revenue, indicating that the funding battles surrounding leveraged contracts are increasingly concentrated in this derivatives battlefield supported by the chain.

Transaction fees on derivatives platforms can basically be viewed as a direct reflection of trading activity: a single-day income level of $1.7 million, combined with glassnode's description of "whales increasing bullish positions steadily over the past two months," along with actions like new address 0x0b8a rapidly selling ETH and then magnifying nominal exposure in APE with 5x leverage, signify that not only large perpetual traders are frequently adjusting their positions, but new high-leverage participants are also constantly entering, leading to a generally high level of overall user participation.

Going forward, if we are to judge whether this leverage battleground will continue or even escalate, it is worth focusing on the relationship between three dimensions: first, whether Hyperliquid's transaction fees and trading volumes continue to maintain levels close to 60% of Ethereum; second, whether short whales like 0x58bro and the bullish whale group highlighted by glassnode will have their position direction and leverage multiples synchronize with changes in platform transaction fees; third, when transaction fees and liquidation data inflate again, whether whales will continue adding to their positions or choose to reduce leverage and lock in existing profits. The synchronization of fees, trading volume, and whale positions indicates that trends are being driven by concentrated funds; however, any significant divergence could indicate emerging asymmetries in liquidity, directionality, and liquidation rhythms.

Next observations on the leverage battlefield

In the past 24 hours, approximately $171 million in liquidations across the network occurred, with the scale of liquidations for both long and short positions being nearly equal, approximately 82,120 traders facing liquidations, and the maximum single liquidation of about $3.5809 million occurring on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD trading pair. For this round of fluctuations, Hyperliquid is both the site of the largest single liquidation and one of the core scenes where bullish and bearish whales concentrate their bets.

The on-chain and exchange data depict a leverage battlefield with a high internal divide in opinions: on one side is the group of whales that have been consistently increasing their long positions on Hyperliquid over the past two months, displaying strong bullish sentiment as mentioned by glassnode; while on the other side are high-leveraged short-selling whales like 0x58bro, who still hold 25x short on ETH and 40x on BTC, with total profits of approximately $33 million, and have cumulatively planned to transfer around $9.03 million in ETH to Binance. Meanwhile, the new wallet, 0x0b8a, sold about $174,000 worth of ETH on Hyperliquid before immediately going long on approximately 9.19 million APE with 5x leverage, having a nominal position of about $1.03 million, indicating that there is still funding actively chasing high-risk assets and high-leverage returns. With bullish whales, bearish whales, and high-leveraged new funding simultaneously active on the same platform, it signifies that there is no consensus on the short-term direction, and both price and liquidation rhythms are susceptible to amplification in partial liquidity squeezes.

Under such a structure, at least three types of variables will be crucial to monitor going forward:

● Concentration of liquidations: Whether future single liquidations around the level of $3.5809 million continue to be concentrated on Hyperliquid and whether they will be concentrated among a few top accounts and single trading pairs will determine if localized shocks will be "point explosions" or spread throughout the network.
● Changes in whale long and short positions: Whether the bullish accumulation trend tracked by glassnode continues, and whether there will be inflection points like 0x58bro significantly increasing or decreasing large short positions will directly impact market pricing of future directions.
● Transaction fees and trading activity: Currently, Ethereum's 24-hour transaction fee is around $2.7 million, higher than Hyperliquid's approximately $1.7 million, and the differences in activity levels between different tracks, combined with changes in Hyperliquid's own fees and trading volume, will help ascertain whether funds are continuing to flow into high-leverage contracts or are temporarily "de-leveraging and reducing risks."

When these indicators simultaneously strengthen, the trend may be amplified by concentrated funds; however, once transaction fees rise and whales reduce their positions or amplify leverage without a corresponding increase in liquidation scale, it could indicate that new phases of significant volatility are brewing. For participants, Hyperliquid is compressing directional disagreements, leverage multiples, and liquidation risks into the same field, where risks and opportunities are no longer scarce, but the true scarcity lies in sensitivity to the rhythm of data changes and execution discipline.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。