This week, the price of Bitcoin experienced a sharp correction in East 8 Time Zone, triggering approximately $2.55 billion in contract positions to be passively liquidated, according to a single source, sparking a wave of "bloodbath" deleveraging discussions across the market. This time, the market movement is not limited to the on-chain world: overseas tech stocks began to lose momentum at high levels, the Federal Reserve's subsequent policy path showed signs of wavering, and the risk appetite environment clearly shifted from "broad optimism" to "cautious contraction." Meanwhile, traditional safe-haven assets also came under pressure, weakening the classic narrative of "risk assets falling, safe-haven assets rising," leaving funds feeling trapped across multiple asset lines. Looking back at this moment, whether Bitcoin's current decline is a healthy clearing of "organic deleveraging" or the prelude to a new round of deep bear market has become a central question that everyone must face.
The Chain Reaction of Tech Stocks Losing Momentum and Safe Havens Failing
● After leading the market for a long time, overseas tech stocks began to weaken under the pressure of high valuations, fundamental realizations, and policy uncertainties. The Federal Reserve's expectations for the pace and intensity of future rate cuts fluctuated, undermining the previous optimistic framework of "liquidity returning, tech and crypto resonating." The risk appetite environment shifted from a "tech + crypto" dual-driven model to a re-examination of growth stock valuations, prompting the market to actively reduce exposure to high-beta assets, with Bitcoin naturally being the first to bear the brunt.
● Unlike the typical pattern of "stocks falling, precious metals supporting," this round saw traditional safe-haven assets, including gold and silver, also experiencing declines and pressure, creating a clear misalignment in sentiment. Due to the lack of precise decline data from authoritative sources, we can only qualitatively observe that safe-haven assets did not provide effective hedging, causing both institutions and retail investors to feel the squeeze of "stocks, bonds, precious metals, and crypto all underperforming," further undermining confidence in hedging and rebalancing strategies.
● In this context, the emotional transmission path gradually became clear: the pullback in tech stocks weakened overall risk appetite—safe-haven assets failed to play their "insurance" role—funds sought the most liquid selling outlets, with crypto assets becoming the preferred choice. The highly leveraged, T+0, and deeply liquid crypto derivatives market naturally assumed the role of a "pressure valve" for global risk appetite, making Bitcoin's current decline exhibit typical cross-asset resonance characteristics rather than being limited to an internal incident within a single industry.
$2.55 Billion Liquidation: Bulls…
● According to data from a single source, during this round of sharp decline, the contract market saw approximately $2.55 billion in positions liquidated, marking a significantly concentrated deleveraging event. Due to the lack of authoritative statistics on its historical ranking, we cannot provide a quantitative description such as "the largest in history," but we can confirm that this was a liquidation substantial enough to change the market's emotional structure, resetting the risk appetite of highly leveraged players.
● Market sentiment generally holds that the decline in open interest (OI) this round primarily came from the bullish side, which is a paraphrase of observations from social media and data platforms rather than an official conclusion. Within this narrative framework, this event resembles a concentrated "erasure" of bullish leverage in a short time: price drops triggered a chain of liquidations, forced liquidation orders pushed selling pressure higher, and funds that were accustomed to "leveraging up on dips" were forced to exit, leaving behind a significantly reduced scale of bullish leverage.
● Regarding the notion of "organic deleveraging," the public view of market maker Wintermute suggests that the current situation is closer to a market-driven risk clearing process rather than a rupture-style collapse triggered by external forces. It is important to emphasize that this is merely a macro judgment from one market maker and does not represent its specific trading actions or position adjustments, nor should it be interpreted as some kind of insider signal. Its significance lies in the reminder that this round of volatility may be more about natural corrections following excessive crowding of high leverage, rather than a chain reaction triggered by a single institution or a black swan event.
● Unlike past sharp declines dominated by on-chain credit crises, this time the market has not seen a systemic credit collapse similar to large lending platforms blowing up or failed liquidations of pledged assets. Within the current scope of visible information, this round of decline appears more like a spontaneous deleveraging driven by price fluctuations rather than a collapse of the credit system: on-chain protocols are operating normally, mainstream custody and lending platforms have not reported concentrated defaults, and risks are more concentrated in high-multiple contracts and emotional aspects rather than the collapse of underlying credit infrastructure.
From On-Chain Funds to Off-Exchange Wall Street:…
● On the on-chain data front, centralized exchanges saw a net outflow of approximately 80,800 ETH within 24 hours (source A), indicating that funds are withdrawing from high-leverage, easily liquidated short-term environments. This portion of capital may be dispersed to self-custody wallets, long-term locked addresses, or simply choose to hold and wait, reflecting that after the sharp decline, some funds opted to "exit the table without leaving the game," converting price-sensitive trading positions into more defensive holding forms.
● On the other hand, during the same round of intense volatility, leading on-chain players still demonstrated ample "ammunition." Early contributors to Hyperliquid, Loracle, have unrealized profits exceeding $18.67 million (source A), becoming a focal case in social media discussions. This figure is not a simple display of individual "myth," but rather indicates that in a high-volatility environment, those who had made sufficient early arrangements and had mature risk management could still retain considerable profit margins and liquidity advantages amid significant fluctuations.
● Off-exchange, traditional financial institutions express their attitudes toward Bitcoin-related assets in a completely different manner. UBS Group increased its holdings of Strategy-related stocks to approximately 5.76 million shares, with a market value of about $805 million (source A). These ETF/stock products are essentially important channels for traditional institutions to gain exposure to Bitcoin. Even amid severe fluctuations in spot prices, Wall Street continues to increase its positions through equity and financial products, forming a starkly different picture from the on-chain panic liquidation.
● This creates an interesting misalignment: on one side, on-chain and exchange retail investors, as well as some high-leverage funds, are being forced to deleverage, while on the other side, institutional funds are indirectly increasing their positions off-exchange through ETFs, related stocks, and structured products. The difference in funding levels means that the short-term price leadership and long-term capital distribution are undergoing structural shifts. For readers, understanding this "deleveraging vs. accumulation" rhythm misalignment is more valuable than fixating on a specific candlestick pattern.
Survivors in Deleveraging: Exchanges…
● Even on the day of the sharp decline, the on-chain derivatives market remained highly active. Hyperliquid's perpetual contract daily trading volume reached approximately $11.7 billion, ranking first among Perp DEXs (source A), indicating that amid contract liquidations and price crashes, trading demand has not dried up but has instead been further amplified by increased volatility. During the deleveraging process, many leveraged positions were cleared, but the matching and risk management infrastructure was instead "stress-tested," with surviving platforms solidifying their liquidity advantages and brand perception.
● At the same time, infrastructure investments represented by Tether's open-source Bitcoin mining system MiningOS (source A) have quietly accelerated. Tether chose to increase computing power and underlying facilities during price turbulence rather than engage in short-term price speculation, signaling that for long-term participants, the security of the Bitcoin network and the construction of the mining ecosystem are more important than short-term price curves. Capital expenditures on computing power often have a multi-year perspective, contrasting sharply with intraday volatility.
● In the compliance track, OSL HK announced the completion of its "Thousand VIP Program" and shifted to a normalized membership operation (source A), reflecting another survival path: stabilizing high-net-worth and professional users during periods of volatility, no longer relying on one-off events to attract new users, but instead solidifying long-term customer relationships through institutionalized, membership-based service systems. For such platforms, volatility is not just a risk but also an opportunity to identify and lock in high-quality users.
● Connecting the above phenomena from the perspective of "winners in deleveraging," we can see that some participants were squeezed out of margin during the sharp decline and passively exited; some leveraged the volatility to enhance trading depth and solidify their competitive moat; and others quietly strengthened their mining and compliance infrastructure during significant price adjustments. The same market movement presents entirely different scripts for different roles; the sharp decline is not just an amplifier of fear but also a stage for industry reshuffling and resource reallocation.
A Decline Without a Lehman Moment: The Next…
● Overall, the visible information suggests that this round of Bitcoin's decline resembles an "organic deleveraging" under macro cross-asset resonance pressure, rather than a "Lehman moment" collapse accompanied by a systemic credit crisis. The loss of momentum in tech stocks, uncertainty in Federal Reserve policies, and the decline of safe-haven assets collectively triggered an overall contraction in risk appetite, but on-chain lending and major financial infrastructures did not experience large-scale defaults or liquidation failures, making this round closer to a repricing of liquidity and leverage rather than a credit termination of the crypto system itself.
● Observing this adjustment, three clues are particularly worth tracking: the first is the macro aspect, including the digestion of tech stock valuations, the evolution of the Federal Reserve's policy path, and the global liquidity environment; the second is the funding aspect, focusing on the rebuilding rhythm of bullish leverage and how the net inflow/outflow data of exchange funds evolves; the third is the institutional and infrastructure aspect, namely the changes in Wall Street's holdings through ETFs and related stocks, as well as the capital investment directions of mining and compliant exchanges. These three clues collectively determine the risk premium levels and trend spaces for the coming quarters.
● In an era of highly fragmented information, the market can easily become obsessed with unverified details such as "is this the bottom?" or "where does this liquidation rank in history?" and thus overlook more important structural changes. A more rational approach is to shift attention from short-term price guessing to the repricing of risk premiums after deleveraging, the rhythm of long-term capital entry, and changes in capital distribution, as these factors are the true key variables driving long-term yields and risk-return ratios.
● Looking ahead, if no new black swan events occur at the macro level, this round of deleveraging may lay the groundwork for the next phase of trends—cleaner leverage, more concentrated capital, and an increased proportion of long-term funds are often common characteristics before the start of a new cycle. Of course, in such an environment, short-term volatility and emotional fluctuations will still be the norm: macro data releases, policy expectation adjustments, and the tug-of-war between on-exchange and off-exchange funds will continue to amplify price elasticity. For participants, what they truly need to adapt to may not be a specific price point, but rather a higher frequency and more complex volatile world after deleveraging.
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。
