On April 24, CoinGlass data showed that the total liquidation amount across the network reached $171 million in the past 24 hours, including $101 million from long positions and $70.44 million from short positions, with approximately 82,120 traders being liquidated at the same time. The liquidation related to BTC was about $2.07 million, while the liquidation related to ETH was about $1.71 million. Both long and short positions were significantly deleveraged, and market sentiment was sharply repriced within a short timeframe.

In this round of liquidations, the largest single liquidation did not occur on traditional centralized exchanges but rather on Hyperliquid: a single liquidation of about $3.58 million occurred in its BTC-USD perpetual contract trading pair, directly putting this derivatives platform in the spotlight. Meanwhile, Artemis data showed that Ethereum network's fee income was about $2.7 million in the past 24 hours, while Hyperliquid accounted for about $1.7 million, indicating that with the current increase in trading activity, this platform has entered the tier of high-revenue protocols and has borne a considerable portion of leverage risk during this round of volatility.

Moreover, it is worth noting that there are two opposing forces pulling in opposite directions on this chain. Glassnode pointed out that over the past two months, whale long positions on Hyperliquid have continued to increase, with these funds betting on breaking out of trading ranges and exhibiting strong bullish sentiment; at the same time, a new address 0x0b8a sold 75 ETH for approximately $174,000 on Hyperliquid and opened a 5x levered long position, heavily investing in about 9.19 million APEs, with a nominal value of about $1.03 million, a typical high-beta altcoin long bet. On the other side, a whale @0x58bro deposited a total of 3,811 ETH (about $9.03 million) into Binance around April 23, leaving only 0.5 ETH on-chain, but maintained 25x levered shorts for ETH and 40x levered shorts for BTC on Hyperliquid, totaling profits of about $33 million, making it one of the few large accounts benefiting from shorts during this round of volatility.

On one side are the whale long positions that have been continuously increasing over the past two months along with aggressive altcoin longs, and on the other side are the high-leverage and already profitable whale shorts. Adding the total network liquidation of $171 million for both long and short positions and the largest single liquidation on Hyperliquid, this platform is being pushed to the center of the current leverage game. Under the continued rise in leverage and the highly concentrated positions of a few whales and high-risk alts, it will be crucial to observe what kind of risks and opportunities Hyperliquid finds itself in at this moment, which will be a key entry point in watching this long-short battle.

$171 Million Liquidation: Longs and Shorts Both Harvested

Looking at the overall network data, this round of volatility was not a one-sided slaughter but a typical simultaneous harvesting of longs and shorts. The data from April 24 showed that the total liquidation amount in the cryptocurrency market reached $171 million in the past 24 hours, with long liquidations amounting to about $101 million and short liquidations about $70.44 million. The proportion of longs was slightly higher, but there was no unidirectional liquidation structure. This indicates that prices experienced clear upward and downward sweeps in a short period, triggering margin warning lines for both sides of the leverage positions.

The extent of liquidation is reflected not only in the amount but also in the number of participants involved. Approximately 82,120 traders were liquidated during the same period, indicating that this round of volatility was not just a hedging game among a few large players but affected a wide range of leveraged participants. For market structure, this type of “many small amounts + few large amounts” comprehensive liquidation is more likely to lower the overall leverage level in the short term and reset some extreme positions.

From the perspective of the subject distribution, mainstream assets like BTC and ETH remain the main battleground for liquidations. During the statistical period, the BTC-related liquidation amount was about $2.07 million, and the ETH-related liquidation amount was about $1.71 million. The scale of these two major assets' liquidations provides a basic reference for the intensity of market volatility. Although these figures do not constitute an absolute majority compared to the total of $171 million, considering that BTC and ETH are typically viewed as having relatively better liquidity and depth, the ability to incur millions of dollars in liquidations on these two main lines itself reflects that short-term price volatility has exceeded the tolerance range of lower-leverage positions.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the overall largest single liquidation across the network happened on Hyperliquid’s BTC-USD perpetual contract trading pair, with a single amount of about $3.58 million. This data indicates that the funding size participating on Hyperliquid in the current market is now sufficient to bear nominal risk exposures in the millions; on the other hand, it also implies that during this short-term volatile movement, Hyperliquid's BTC contracts were used as important leveraged betting platforms — at least one position close to $4 million in nominal scale was forcibly liquidated amid the price impact.

From the perspective of mechanism and structure, this concentrated liquidation brings short-term impacts to leveraged funds and market liquidity, typically reflected in three levels: First, forced liquidations directly reduce the existing stock of high-leverage positions, serving as a passive “deleveraging” for the overall leverage level that has been continuously elevated; secondly, during the liquidation process, large market price liquidations instantly consume liquidity in the order book, amplifying short-term slippage and expanding the price volatility range; thirdly, after experiencing a bilateral liquidation of $171 million, some funds may choose to temporarily reduce leverage and shrink positions, causing short-term volatility to exhibit some retreat after extreme shocks, but until sentiment has fully recovered, a new round of high volatility could be reignited at any moment. For contract platforms like Hyperliquid, the point of this maximum single liquidation also objectively reinforces its role as a “leverage amplifier” in the current long-short battle structure.

Whales Increasing Positions for Two Months: Betting on Upside Breakout

Looking back along the timeline before this large-scale liquidation, Glassnode provided a key clue: Over the past two months, large perpetual contract traders on Hyperliquid have continued to increase their long positions. Glassnode stated on X that these whales have been “betting on upside breakout,” meaning systematic bets on prices breaking out upwards from the current oscillation range. Multiple media outlets summarizing this conclusion characterized it as “strong bullish sentiment,” indicating that this accumulation of longs was not an isolated case, but was seen as a predominant behavioral characteristic over a period.

From a trading logic standpoint, “betting on upside breakout” usually implies two layers of expectation: First, the horizontal price range currently present is perceived as a continuation rather than a top, and whales are willing to lay out longs within or near the range preemptively; second, the real profit source is anticipated to be pinned on a future breakout with volume — once the price escapes from the oscillation zone, positions can amplify profits in the continuation of the trend. Glassnode’s data points to the direction of positions and time dimension — long positions accumulating continuously over a two-month span — without disclosing specific sizes and leverage multipliers, which means we can only confirm the act of “continuously going long” itself, but cannot accurately restore the risk exposure of each position.

The issue is that this strategy of continuously increasing leverage on longs, combined with the market environment of “oscillation and unclear direction” in mid to late April, inevitably accumulates two types of risks: First is liquidation risk — in the repeated tug-of-war within the range, each false downward or upward breakout can trigger the marginal evaporation of some high-leverage longs, accumulating to a certain scale may lead to a similar centralized liquidation of $171 million like what CoinGlass reported; the second is missed opportunity risk — if the whale is forced to reduce leverage or even close positions after multiple washouts, when a genuine upside breakout finally arrives, they might find themselves “thrown off the train early” and unable to fully benefit from trend profits.

It must be emphasized that the publicly visible data only showcases two clear dimensions: First, Hyperliquid whale long positions have continuously increased over the past two months; second, this behavior is linked to the expectations of “bullish, betting on upside breakout” by Glassnode. As for how these positions performed during the round of $171 million liquidations around April 24 — including whether they encountered forced liquidations, reduced their holdings previously, or had gone against the current to increase positions amid volatility — existing information has not provided answers. Therefore, a more reasonable analytical approach would be to consider “whales increasing positions over two months” as part of the current long-short structure and sentiment background rather than directly equating it with the one-day liquidation data; this causal chain still requires more time and further on-chain details and holding position specifics to verify.

Betting Everything on 75 ETH to Bet on APE

Against the backdrop of whale longs continuously accumulating over two months and the single-day network liquidation of $171 million, an extreme bet from a newly created address provides an amplified slice for this leverage game: According to Lookonchain, the newly created wallet address 0x0b8a directly chose to “drain” its ETH positions on Hyperliquid.

On-chain and platform data indicates that this address sold 75 ETH on Hyperliquid for a cashing amount of about $174,000. After converting from on-chain spot to cash within the platform, this address did not choose to remain with mainstream assets but quickly switched battlefields: opening a 5x levered long contract on the same platform, doing long for about 9.19 million APEs, with a nominal scale of about $1.03 million.

From the path perspective, this is a typical decision chain of “switching from low-beta mainstream assets to high-beta alt leverage positions”:

● The starting point is ETH: 75 ETH being concentrated and sold indicates a relinquishment of the position's return curve associated with the Ethereum Network’s overall yield and steadier liquidity.
● The central aspect is the leverage magnification: 5x leverage takes about $174,000 in funds and magnifies it to a nominal risk exposure exceeding $1 million.
● The endpoint is APE: choosing a more volatile asset like APE subjects the overall position to greater frequency and magnitude of price fluctuations.

In an environment where long liquidations amount to $101 million and short liquidations to $70.44 million within 24 hours, this configuration exhibits an exceedingly aggressive risk preference: on one hand, the leverage multiple is not extreme, but the nominal scale has already far exceeded the cash released from the sale of ETH by this address; on the other hand, switching the underlying from ETH to APE makes the position more sensitive to short-term violent fluctuations, significantly increasing the probability of reaching forced liquidation thresholds in similar intraday volatility.

Structurally speaking, this behavior reveals part of the strategic orientation of funds on Hyperliquid:
● Not satisfied with holding or lightly leveraged ETH exposure, but actively “unpacking” the mainstream asset's base to exchange for higher beta, more flexible alt positions;
● At the same time window when whale longs are continuously accumulating and the platform becomes the site of the largest single liquidation, new funds still choose to increase alt leverage longs, indicating that the market is not merely “deleveraging” in a unidirectional manner, but is still accumulating risks in localized segments.

It must be emphasized that public information has only disclosed the behavior of 0x0b8a selling ETH and opening APE, as well as basic parameters such as the 5x leverage and nominal value of about $1.03 million, and has not indicated whether additional margin was added, positions were reduced, or if they have since been forcefully liquidated. Thus, this is merely a single address sample and cannot be extrapolated to derive a complete profit outcome or the overall risk state of the platform.

However, as a concrete case, it provides a clear example for understanding the leverage demand for altcoins on Hyperliquid and the potential chain reaction risks of liquidation: when funds are withdrawn from mainstream assets like ETH to concentrate bets on high-leverage alt longs, any round of intraday volatility of a scale similar to that on April 24 could trigger localized forced liquidations on such high-beta positions, and then transmit risk to larger contract books.

Short Whale Earned $33 Million but Stood Firm on Shorts

In contrast to the funding path chasing high-beta alt longs, there are also major shorts on Hyperliquid with completely opposite positions. Around April 23, according to reports from Onchainlens and Golden Finance, whale address @0x58bro completed a highly significant maneuver: it deposited a total of 3,811 ETH into Binance, approximately $9.03 million at the time's price, after which only about 0.5 ETH remained on-chain at the address.

This means that from the visible wallet perspective, this whale has nearly emptied its on-chain ETH spot position but has not loosened its contract direction. According to public media reports, the same address still holds two groups of high-leverage shorts on Hyperliquid: one is a 25x leverage short position for ETH and the other is a 40x leverage short position for BTC. Based on currently disclosed profit data, its total profit on Hyperliquid is about $33 million, making it one of the most striking single profit cases identified during this round of volatility.

The combination of funding path and position structure constitutes a fascinating blend: on one hand, transferring 3,811 ETH into a centralized exchange nearly drains the on-chain spot, while on the other hand, maintaining high multiples of BTC and ETH shorts on Hyperliquid. This attitude of “lifting out of spot plus holding on to leveraged shorts” is difficult to explain with a single motivation:

● From a cashing-out logic, transferring large sums of ETH into Binance usually signifies the intent to convert to cash or switch to lower-risk assets; given that the account has already achieved paper profits of about $33 million, it appears to be locking in a portion of profits within the exchange's account, thereby breaking away from the public on-chain view.

● From a hedging and risk management perspective, holding nearly no ETH spot on-chain means the net long exposure of that address on-chain is close to zero, but maintaining the 25x ETH short and 40x BTC short on Hyperliquid indicates that its directional bets have not been loosened, just concentrated in the derivatives realm. As public information has not indicated any closing or reducing actions on Hyperliquid, this configuration of “light spot positions + heavy contract holdings” is still ongoing.

● From the perspective of continuing the game, if their judgment is that the market still has further downside potential, then transferring ETH spot to Binance in advance might be reserving some room for flexible liquidity allocation — for example, adjusting margin or executing contrary trades through centralized accounts during further price fluctuations. However, in the absence of more public data, the specific plans remain uncertain.

Compared to the mainstream trend identified by Glassnode of “whales on Hyperliquid increasing their long positions over the past two months, preferring bullish range breakouts,” the behavior of @0x58bro standing firm on high-leverage shorts after earning about $33 million underscores a stark divergence within Hyperliquid's large account community in terms of direction: on one side, whales continuing to accumulate longs and betting on upward breakouts, mostly acting as bearers of potential liquidation risk; on the other side, players already positioned on the profit side while maintaining heavy short positions, more resembling the “harvesting end” amidst the round of $171 million in both long and short liquidations.

This divergence indicates that the current risk on Hyperliquid is not concentrated unidirectionally in long or short positions; rather, it is shaped by larger accounts with differing stances: when market conditions become violently volatile again, high-leverage shorts like @0x58bro may continue to profit from long liquidations while also potentially turning into the next group of high-risk forced liquidation specimens amid sudden reversals, pushing Hyperliquid's contract books into a higher intensity of long-short combat together with the whales accumulating longs.

Ethereum Income Suppresses HL: Trading Activity Affects

From the fee perspective of this long-short battle, on-chain data has already provided a clear comparison. Odaily cited Artemis data showing that within the time window of April 24, Ethereum network’s 24-hour fee income was about $2.7 million; in the same statistical caliber, Hyperliquid's 24-hour fee income was approximately $1.7 million. Ethereum’s fee income during this period “exceeded Hyperliquid,” indicating that the main net remains a venue for higher fee rates and activity density.

Fee income is often viewed as a direct quantitative indicator of protocol usage and trading activity. From this dataset, on one hand, Ethereum still suppresses Hyperliquid at the overall income level; on the other, amid a backdrop of increased overall trading activity, Hyperliquid has managed to contribute roughly $1.7 million in fees on a daily dimension, placing it among the high-revenue trading protocols. Considering that during the same time frame Hyperliquid experienced the largest single liquidation event of about $3.58 million across the network, along with the continued increase in whale long positions over the past two months and whale @0x58bro’s record of realizing about $33 million in profit through 25x ETH shorts and 40x BTC shorts on the platform, it can be seen that this $1.7 million income largely comes from high-frequency, high-leverage contract trading behavior.

This also elucidates Hyperliquid's actual position within the current market structure: the Ethereum main net supports more extensive on-chain activities, charging about $2.7 million in daily income at higher base fee rates, reflecting the funding density and trading concentration of the entire ecosystem; while Hyperliquid, in a more segmented perpetual contract track, pushes its 24-hour fee to $1.7 million through dense high-leverage long-short hedging, frequent liquidations, and whale turnover. The fee and income data collectively suggest that Hyperliquid has become an important harbor for high-frequency, high-leverage trading, but its positioning alongside Ethereum is not a simple replacement relationship; rather, it serves different risk preferences and trading demands across varied levels and scenarios.

High Leverage Still in Play: Risks Persist

In the past 24 hours, the total network liquidation was $171 million, including $101 million from longs and $70.44 million from shorts, about 82,120 traders were forcibly liquidated, with BTC-related liquidations amounting to about $2.07 million and ETH-related liquidations at approximately $1.71 million, with pressures on both long and short positions. The largest single liquidation in this round occurred in Hyperliquid’s BTC-USD perpetual contract, amounting to about $3.58 million, indicating that during this round of volatility, the concentration of high leverage and risk release has found a primary battleground on professional derivatives platforms such as Hyperliquid.

From the funding structure view, high leverage has not exited the scene due to this wave of forced liquidations; instead, it has formed a tighter tug-of-war between longs and shorts. Glassnode disclosed that whale long positions on Hyperliquid have continuously increased over the past two months, consistently escalating bets on upside breakouts while amassing considerable bullish leverage positions. At the same time, whale @0x58bro, while maintaining 25x short positions on ETH and 40x short positions on BTC on Hyperliquid, which has earned around $33 million, also deposited 3,811 ETH (about $9.03 million) into Binance, leaving only 0.5 ETH on-chain. This combination of “whales consistently adding long positions + large shorts staying highly profitable but not yet cashing out” makes the funding game within Hyperliquid more like a string pulled to the limit, rather than a simple unidirectional trend. Meanwhile, new address 0x0b8a sold 75 ETH on Hyperliquid for about $174,000 and then directly opened a 5x leverage long position, doing long for approximately 9.19 million APEs, with a nominal value of about $1.03 million, further evidencing that high-leverage speculation in the high-beta alt segment remains actively operational.

In this configuration, the evolution of subsequent risks will heavily depend on several key variables: First, will the Hyperliquid whales, as pointed out by Glassnode, actively reduce positions and shift battlegrounds during subsequent volatilities, or will they passively encounter forced liquidations? Once these bullish leveraged positions are concentrated and cleared, the impact on internal liquidity and other contract subjects will be amplified. Second, will large accounts like @0x58bro, which have already realized about $33 million in short profits on Hyperliquid, choose to lock in profits in stages or continue maintaining high leveraged short positions in anticipation of deeper downward space? Different choices will directly influence market judgments on whether a “top/bottom” has emerged. Third, will high-leverage long positions in the alt segments represented by 0x0b8a survive the next round of extreme volatility or trigger a new round of chain liquidations — once such high-beta assets are forcedly liquidated, risks may transmit from long-tail assets to mainstream varieties through paths like margin squeezes and cross-asset liquidity strains.

Together with Artemis’s disclosed fee data showing Ethereum’s $2.7 million fee income over the past 24 hours and Hyperliquid’s approximately $1.7 million, the current market is clearly in a “high activity + high cost” environment. In such an environment, any high leverage position is more frequently incurring costs and is approaching the strong liquidation boundary more often. For participants, the critical issue is no longer just a judgment of direction but rather: in a landscape of highly hedged long and short leverage with limited liquidity absorption capacity and rising costs, are they willing to place their positions on this taut string? This round of $171 million in bilateral liquidations and the $3.58 million single liquidation on Hyperliquid may just be a pressure test before a larger-scale market move, rather than an endpoint to risks.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
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。