$117M in crypto long positions liquidated in 24 hours as leveraged bulls get flushed

$117M in crypto long positions liquidated in 24 hours as leveraged bulls get flushed

Ethereum and Bitcoin traders took the biggest hits as Binance handled the largest share of forced closures

Crypto traders who bet on prices going up had a rough day. Roughly $117 million in long positions were liquidated across the market over a 24-hour window, according to figures circulating on X.

Broader futures data from October 25 to 26, 2026, puts total liquidations, long and short combined, at between $117 million and $133 million. Long positions made up about 70% to 80% of that pile. That works out to approximately $80 million to $106 million in bullish bets forcibly closed, depending on which tally you trust.

Where the damage landed

Most of the carnage happened in perpetual futures. These are derivative contracts with no expiry date, which let traders hold a leveraged position for as long as they can afford to keep it open.

Binance processed the biggest chunk of these forced closures. The exchange accounted for roughly 50% to 66% of total liquidation volume, which came to $73 million or more by some counts.

Advertisement

Bybit and Gate also saw meaningful activity. The spread across several venues suggests this was a market-wide deleveraging, not a glitch or a problem at any single platform.

Ethereum led the losses. Liquidated ETH positions ranged from $39 million to $54 million during the period.

Bitcoin came in second, with $22 million to $32 million in BTC positions wiped out. Solana and a collection of other altcoins contributed smaller but still noteworthy amounts.

The single largest liquidation was an estimated $7 million long position in ETH on Binance.

No villain, just leverage doing what leverage does

The liquidations lined up with minor price declines rather than a specific catalyst. There was no exchange collapse, no regulatory bombshell, no hack. No single entity, exchange, or individual has been identified as responsible for the elevated totals.

The heavy skew toward longs matters too. With 70% to 80% of liquidations hitting bullish bets, the data suggests a large share of traders were positioned for upside and had little room for a pullback.

Some perspective on the size

Liquidation spikes like this are common in volatile digital asset markets. The figures from October 25 to 26 are also well below previous episodes, where liquidations ran into the multiple hundreds of millions of dollars or even crossed the billion-dollar mark during major market moves.

What this means for traders and the market

With Binance handling somewhere between half and two-thirds of the liquidation volume, a large share of leveraged risk in the market runs through a single venue.

Ethereum saw more liquidated volume than Bitcoin, and the largest single wipeout was an ETH long. That points to aggressive leveraged positioning in ETH specifically.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
$117M in crypto long positions liquidated in 24 hours as leveraged bulls get flushed
$117M in crypto long positions liquidated in 24 hours as leveraged bulls get flushed

Ethereum and Bitcoin traders took the biggest hits as Binance handled the largest share of forced closures

Crypto traders who bet on prices going up had a rough day. Roughly $117 million in long positions were liquidated across the market over a 24-hour window, according to figures circulating on X.

Broader futures data from October 25 to 26, 2026, puts total liquidations, long and short combined, at between $117 million and $133 million. Long positions made up about 70% to 80% of that pile. That works out to approximately $80 million to $106 million in bullish bets forcibly closed, depending on which tally you trust.

Where the damage landed

Most of the carnage happened in perpetual futures. These are derivative contracts with no expiry date, which let traders hold a leveraged position for as long as they can afford to keep it open.

Binance processed the biggest chunk of these forced closures. The exchange accounted for roughly 50% to 66% of total liquidation volume, which came to $73 million or more by some counts.

Advertisement

Bybit and Gate also saw meaningful activity. The spread across several venues suggests this was a market-wide deleveraging, not a glitch or a problem at any single platform.

Ethereum led the losses. Liquidated ETH positions ranged from $39 million to $54 million during the period.

Bitcoin came in second, with $22 million to $32 million in BTC positions wiped out. Solana and a collection of other altcoins contributed smaller but still noteworthy amounts.

The single largest liquidation was an estimated $7 million long position in ETH on Binance.

No villain, just leverage doing what leverage does

The liquidations lined up with minor price declines rather than a specific catalyst. There was no exchange collapse, no regulatory bombshell, no hack. No single entity, exchange, or individual has been identified as responsible for the elevated totals.

The heavy skew toward longs matters too. With 70% to 80% of liquidations hitting bullish bets, the data suggests a large share of traders were positioned for upside and had little room for a pullback.

Some perspective on the size

Liquidation spikes like this are common in volatile digital asset markets. The figures from October 25 to 26 are also well below previous episodes, where liquidations ran into the multiple hundreds of millions of dollars or even crossed the billion-dollar mark during major market moves.

What this means for traders and the market

With Binance handling somewhere between half and two-thirds of the liquidation volume, a large share of leveraged risk in the market runs through a single venue.

Ethereum saw more liquidated volume than Bitcoin, and the largest single wipeout was an ETH long. That points to aggressive leveraged positioning in ETH specifically.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.