Hyperliquid · perpetual
BTC
Where forced selling sits, how much of it is trapped, and how big it is against the book standing in front of it.
Who holds it
From a uniform sample of wallets discovered in our BTC trade recording — not the biggest accounts ranked by activity. It is uniform inside that frame, not a sample of every venue account. How the sample was drawn →
Put against the book: the top 10 sampled wallets' combined position is $220.3M — 86.2% of the $255.5M standing within ±1%. Not a claim about what happens if they move — a comparison of two things we already measure separately.
| Wallet | Position | Since last scan | Free collateral |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0x020ca6… | $114.4M | — | $0 |
| 0xa445a0… | $21.0M | +$151k | $0 |
| 0x09bc1c… | $18.9M | $-16,969,241 | $5.4M |
| 0x1367df… | $15.8M | — | $2k |
| 0x6f97d3… | $14.8M | +$4.6M | $133k |
The largest wallets in the sample, and the change in each since its own previous appearance (9.5h ago) — a fact about two observations, not a signal about what comes next. How this is measured →
How big is any of this, really?
Every liquidation map scales its clusters against each other, so the biggest one always looks like a wall. Against the liquidity actually standing in front of it, it usually is not.
- largest cluster
- 9.8% $25.0M at 81,159
- median cluster
- 0.19% $478k at 79,189
Drawn at true scale: the track is the whole book, the marks are those clusters inside it. This is the comparison a heatmap never shows you, and it is why reaching a cluster moves price about a tenth as much as the move it arrived on.
estimated hyperliquid l2Book, nSigFigs=3, fetched live. Levels reach ±2.47%; a cluster beyond that is divided by the book at spot, because the book at its own price is not observable
Where the forced selling sits
Above spot is where shorts are bought back; below is where longs are sold. Bar length is exposure; the solid portion is the part held by wallets that cannot move their own liquidation price. Bar length is relative to the largest cluster here — the % of book column is the absolute reading, and it is the one that decides whether any of this can move the market.
calculated 0.5% buckets from 78 positions from the hourly scan of the 300 largest. Being large correlates with being safe: this tier holds 28% of positions within 10% of liquidation where the full scan holds 47% (F-0018). Coverage and dollar totals are unaffected
What changed since the last scan
The largest position moves between our last two deep scans, matched by wallet. This reports what happened — it is not a signal, and it is not read as one.
| Wallet | Change | Size | Free collateral |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0x004edc… | position closed | $23.9M → $0 | — |
| 0x5b5d51… | position increased | $100.1M → $118.7M | $12 |
| 0xfc2713… | free collateral increased | +$5.8M | $7.0M |
| 0xfc2713… | position increased | $60.8M → $71.4M | $7.0M |
| 0x09bc1c… | position reduced | $30.8M → $24.4M | $4.5M |
| 0x09bc1c… | free collateral increased | +$2.5M | $4.5M |
| 0xecb63c… | free collateral decreased | $-6,014,214 | $19.8M |
| 0xecb63c… | position reduced | $23.4M → $22.5M | $19.8M |
166 changes of $50k or more, 5.9h since the second scan · deep tier only, both sides — mixing in the hourly tier would count a wallet re-ranking out of the top 300 as a position change, which it is not (F-0011). How this is measured →
What we cannot see
- 66% of open interest — wallets outside this scan
- cross-margin effects from positions in other assets
- anything smaller than $50k, or anything that changed since the second scan above — the feed is two snapshots apart, not continuous
- the book beyond ±2.47% — a cluster further out is measured against the book at spot, which is a proxy for one we cannot see