In the past 24 hours, the entire network's leverage has been reset. On the evening of April 24, 2026, statistics from CoinGlass showed that the total liquidation amount in the cryptocurrency market reached $171 million in one day, notably including $101 million in long liquidations and $70.4366 million in short liquidations. A total of 82,120 traders were simultaneously "liquidated" by the market in the same trading day—a typical example of a mutual liquidation between longs and shorts.

In this round of collective deleveraging, the largest single liquidation did not occur in traditional leading platforms but rather on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD contract: a single forced liquidation amounting to $3.5809 million. This record-breaking liquidation has put Hyperliquid, which has frequently been mentioned in the media over the past year as one of the main perpetual contract trading venues, under the spotlight of leveraged speculation.

More compellingly, within the same time window, on-chain and derivatives data present a highly fragmented leverage structure: glassnode pointed out that over the past two months, whale long positions on Hyperliquid have continued to increase, with them betting on a breakout above the current price range, indicating that large perpetual contract traders are strongly bullish; at the same time, Onchainlens detected that whale address 0x58bro, after clearing almost all ETH on-chain, still holds a 25x short position in ETH and a 40x short position in BTC on Hyperliquid, with total profits of about $33 million, showing that typical high-leverage bearish positions remain in the market. Meanwhile, a newly created address 0x0b8a has sold 75 ETH on Hyperliquid for approximately $174,000, then directly opened a 5x leveraged long position with around 9.19 million APE, nominally valued at about $1.03 million, indicating that new funds are chasing the altcoin market with medium to high leverage.

On the same exchange, whales have been continuously increasing their long positions over the past two months, longstanding shorts are sitting on tens of millions of dollars in unrealized profits with high leverage, and new wallets are fully invested in small-cap assets using leverage—against the backdrop of a $171 million double explosion of long and short positions, Hyperliquid is becoming a concentrated sample of "who is carrying the leverage and who is being carried by leverage" in this round.

Double Explosion: $171 Million Liquidation Day

According to CoinGlass data on April 24, 2026, the entire network experienced a total of $171 million in liquidations over the past 24 hours, with $101 million in long liquidations and $70.4366 million in short liquidations, involving 82,120 traders. Although the proportion of long positions being liquidated is slightly higher, shorts also faced large-scale liquidations, which is more indicative of a typical double-direction deleveraging event rather than a unilateral crash.

From the variety distribution perspective, leading assets remain the core window for measuring risk release. The liquidation amount for BTC was $2.0702 million, while ETH's liquidation amount was $1.7111 million, accounting for approximately 1.2% and 1.0% of the total liquidation volume of the day, respectively. This means that BTC and ETH do not "consume" the majority of funds when considering the overall $171 million liquidation, but they still serve as the primary anchors for market leverage sentiment and risk pricing, as changes in positions surrounding these two contracts often determine whether subsequent risks will spill over into higher leverage or smaller market cap assets.

It is important to note that the "maximum single" that the market amplified is only a localized event in this round of liquidations. In the past 24 hours, the largest single liquidation amounted to $3.5809 million, occurring on the BTC-USD trading pair on Hyperliquid, which only constituted about 2% of the total network liquidation of $171 million. In other words, this risk release is essentially a synchronized deleveraging across the entire network, across multiple varieties and accounts, with the largest single liquidation on Hyperliquid being just one piece of the puzzle, not a standalone event that can be simply interpreted as an isolated imbalance of a specific platform.

Largest Liquidation on Hyperliquid

The single forced liquidation of $3.5809 million falls on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD perpetual contract, which initially indicates that "this platform is riskier," but rather two more fundamental facts: first, there genuinely exist directional leveraged positions in the millions of dollars here; second, the matching and counterparty depth are sufficient to absorb such forced liquidation orders, as otherwise, it would be difficult for such positions to be fully cleared amid market fluctuations.

From a liquidity perspective, the largest single liquidations usually occur in active trading environments with higher position concentration rather than in thinly traded pools. The forced liquidation of $3.58 million nominal position essentially corresponds to equal-scale risk exposure that has already been established and maintained over a certain period; this implies that Hyperliquid has attracted a considerable amount of leveraged funds in its BTC-USD perpetual contract, rather than just a "fragmented retail speculation" long-tail market.

At the same time, the "maximum" attribute of this single forced liquidation points more towards a concentration of individual account positions rather than a systemic imbalance across the platform as a whole. The total amount of liquidations across the network on April 24, 2026, was $171 million, involving 82,120 traders; under such a denominator, the $3.5809 million single position on Hyperliquid was recorded as "the largest," which more reflects the presence of a few large participants on that platform rather than suggesting it played an overwhelmingly dominant role in this round of deleveraging.

If we zoom out from a single liquidation to the revenue scale, we can see another representative set of data. According to Odaily based on Artemis disclosures, the Ethereum network's fee revenue in a certain 24-hour window on April 24, 2026, was approximately $2.7 million. Under the same statistical caliber, Hyperliquid's 24-hour fee revenue was about $1.7 million. The approximately $1 million gap between the two indicates that during the same time frame, Ethereum, as a universal settlement layer, still carried a greater volume of overall trading activity, while Hyperliquid has garnered sufficient leverage trading demand to produce a "maximum single liquidation" within a relatively narrower derivatives scenario.

It is essential to emphasize that this fee revenue comparison merely depicts the differences in scale and activity between the two systems within the same time frame, and cannot directly translate to a risk ranking of "who is safer/more dangerous." The single $3.5809 million liquidation describes local leverage releases on a specific account and a specific variety; fee revenue reflects the snapshot of the entire system's flow in a day. Distinguishing between "maximum single liquidation" and "overall systemic risk" is crucial to avoid misinterpreting a visualized data event as a systemic threat to Hyperliquid's entire platform or the whole derivatives market.

Whales Increasing Long Positions for Two Months

Glassnode's post on the afternoon of April 24, 2026, focused on the "large long positions" on Hyperliquid: over the past two months, these whales' long perpetual positions have been continuously net increasing, and they have been betting that prices can effectively break through the current range. Glassnode directly interprets this behavior as the presence of considerable and sustained bullish sentiment among large perpetual contract traders. This conclusion was subsequently relayed by various media outlets like Odaily, Deep Tide TechFlow, and Foresight News in a condensed timeframe from 16:45 to 17:00, forming a consistent market narrative.

From the account behavior perspective, "increasing holdings over two months" at least reflects two points: first, this group of whales is not simply bottom-fishing or betting on a rebound at a single point in time, but continuously amplifying their long exposures within a sideways trading range, indicating high confidence in the probability of a breakout above the range; second, choosing to increase long positions despite multiple fluctuations during the period rather than reducing leverage or hedging suggests that their risk appetite and judgment of the mid-term trend are significantly tilted towards aggressive long positions. It is worth noting that glassnode did not disclose the specific leverage multiples or nominal sizes of these longs, so we cannot directly infer the true vulnerability of their positions under extreme market conditions from on-chain data, only confirming persistent accumulation in direction and over time.

When we place this structural accumulation of "whale longs" into the context of the liquidation backdrop on the evening of April 24, we can see another side to leverage. CoinGlass statistics showed that by that evening, the total liquidation amount across the network reached $171 million over the past 24 hours, with $101 million in long liquidations and $70.4366 million in short liquidations, involving 82,120 traders; the largest single liquidation occurred in Hyperliquid's BTC-USD trading pair, amounting to $3.5809 million. When long positions accumulate over a lengthy period and the price fails to demonstrate a decisive trend continuation, any downward "tests" could escalate to margin pressure: if some long positions themselves have high leverage, during market volatility, available margins can be rapidly eroded, triggering additional margin calls; once funds fail to keep pace with refinancing, they may lead to passive liquidation or even catastrophic losses, contributing to the $101 million in long liquidations recorded.

In other words, whale longs on Hyperliquid have carved their directional views into on-chain data through continuous accumulation over the past two months; and the $171 million in double-direction liquidations across the network on April 24 serves as a reminder to the market that a similarly bullish dataset in a fluctuating environment, with breakthroughs delayed, can easily morph into a set of "high leverage vulnerabilities." What truly determines the size of the risk is not just the long and short directions and holding times, but also the details that remain hidden—leverage multiples, margin buffers, and whether there is sufficient capital to withstand the next drawdown when facing volatility.

Shorts Profiting While New Money Goes All In

If the "whale long accumulation" mentioned by glassnode represents a funding curve aligned with patient bets on breakouts, then 0x58bro serves as an extreme hedge sample on the other end: Onchainlens shows that around April 23, this address deposited a cumulative total of 2,791 ETH to Binance over the past 24 hours, worth approximately $6.64 million at the time, having deposited a total of 3,811 ETH, or about $9.03 million, leaving only 0.5 ETH on-chain. Meanwhile, 0x58bro still holds a 25x leverage short in ETH and a 40x leverage short in BTC on Hyperliquid, with combined unrealized profits of about $33 million—transferring significant amounts on-chain to a centralized exchange while continuing to maintain high-leverage shorts. Such operations are typically understood in the market as locking in phase profits while keeping high-leverage bets for potential downside.

In contrast to such "old shorts," the newly created wallet 0x0b8a exemplifies a typical "new money all-in" approach: they first sold 75 ETH on Hyperliquid, cashing out approximately $174,000, and subsequently opened a 5x leveraged long position with about 9.19 million APE, nominally valued at around $1.03 million. In other words, 0x0b8a converted a relatively dispersed and moderately volatile ETH spot position into a high-leverage single alt contract position, aiming for sharper returns on a larger nominal scale.

Within the same time window, three distinctly different funding behaviors coexist on Hyperliquid: glassnode observes whales continuously increasing positions while expecting a breakout; there are also entities like 0x58bro that currently hold about $33 million in short profits while still maintaining high leverage 25x ETH and 40x BTC shorts; and then there are aggressive new funds represented by 0x0b8a, selling ETH only to go all-in on APE with 5x leverage. The former bets on an inevitable upward breakthrough, the second group seeks to realize profits from downward trends, while the third group attempts to leverage the opportunities created by alt fluctuations.

When we overlay these three signals and place them back into the context of the $171 million double explosion that occurred across the network on April 24, with the largest single liquidation happening in Hyperliquid's BTC-USD trading pair, a clear structure emerges: Hyperliquid is currently in a stage of significant divergences between long and short, with both sides willing to bet on medium to high leverage. The continuous accumulation by whale longs indicates that "the upper story" has not yet collapsed, while established shorts like 0x58bro have demonstrated that "downside trading" can yield real profits, with new wallets further pushing leverage in the alt sector. This funding structure in itself implies that risks on the platform no longer stem solely from directional judgments, but from both sides utilizing higher leverage and compressing their margin for error.

The Next Act on the Perpetual Contract Battleground

Putting this data together: across the network during the 24 hours of April 24, there was $171 million in forced liquidations, involving 82,120 accounts, with long liquidations at $101 million and short liquidations at $70.4366 million; the largest single liquidation of $3.5809 million occurred on Hyperliquid's BTC-USD trading pair. Meanwhile, glassnode noted the continuous accumulation of whale longs on Hyperliquid over the past two months, betting on the upper range being broken; Onchainlens observed traditional capital like 0x58bro obtaining around $33 million in profits through 25x ETH and 40x BTC shorts on Hyperliquid; Lookonchain saw newly created address 0x0b8a throw out 75 ETH, turning around to pressure approximately 9.19 million APE at 5x leverage on Hyperliquid. Both sides of long and short, different types of capital, are opting to raise leverage in the same venue, confirming that at this stage, Hyperliquid has become one of the significant battlegrounds for leveraged capital speculation.

From a risk perspective, what deserves closer attention next is not "is there sentiment" but "how the structure evolves":
● Are long and short positions continuously unilaterally skewed, are whale longs continuing to add positions, and are high-leverage shorts like 0x58bro maintaining high profit exposure;
● Is the funding rate sustaining at an extreme on one side for an extended period, reflecting that one side's leverage demand is squeezing the other;
● Are liquidation amounts and numbers concentrating in a single direction over the next several trading days, focusing on Hyperliquid, rather than moving in unison with the overall $171 million network fluctuations.
Only when these indicators lean to one side can it signify substantial accumulation of leverage risks within the platform, rather than just a one-time sharp fluctuation.

It should be equally clear that in terms of volume, Artemis data shows that Ethereum's network fee revenue of about $2.7 million in a certain 24-hour span still surpasses Hyperliquid's $1.7 million, indicating that the latter is still distanced from being a "core flow center" in the entire market. What we can currently confirm is that Hyperliquid has hosted the largest single liquidation during this round of $171 million in double direction liquidations while concurrently attracting high-leverage positions from whale longs, established shorts, and new wallets, but this does not equate to "all price fluctuations being driven by Hyperliquid." There are still many blanks in the on-chain and platform-side data; attributing general market fluctuations simply to issues on a single platform entails the risk of replacing evidence with emotion.

In assessing future market conditions, a more reasonable approach involves continuously tracking these public data: whether the long and short position structures, funding rate curves, and liquidation scales and directions show sustained imbalances, combined with overall network liquidation and transaction conditions, to evaluate the actual position of leverage risks on Hyperliquid rather than jumping to conclusions after a single day of fluctuations. The main battleground for perpetual contracts may rotate, but the behavior and structure of leveraged capital are the main narratives worth revisiting.

Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。