296,163 crypto traders have been liquidated in the last 24 hours
twitter.com
twitter.com
> In traditional finance, if you have borrowed money to buy some stocks, and the stocks have gone down, your broker will call you up and say “hey could you post more collateral.” Ideally you post the collateral and everything is fine. Sometimes you don’t, and your broker sells the stocks at hopefully a high enough price to pay off your loan. But sometimes you say “sorry, I can’t post any more collateral today, but I can try tomorrow,” and your broker gives you another day.
> In decentralized finance, if you have borrowed money (stablecoins) to buy some crypto, and the crypto has gone down, a robot sells your crypto at hopefully a high enough price to pay off your loan, automatically and without bothering to call you.
Because everything is "smart-contracts" and automated, there is basically no buffer between being under and over leveraged, so market swings are much rougher than in traditional finance.
If you can liquidate 800M to rid yourself of a 1B loan then it seems fairly obvious to do it?
and if there are (or not) any mild-leverage alternatives *without* liquidation
This is specifically a crypto problem where everything is automatic and decentralized.
(Some outfits are letting you "auto add" margin rather than being liquidated. Not sure if that would help.
Short selling is basically equivalent to put options. Crucially, in both cases, as the price goes up the potential loss increases, theoretically unbounded (!). The loss may be larger than the amount of money originally put down.
Thus, there are two options:
- provide collateral to the broker to indicate that you are still capable of covering the loss. If the trade goes bad, you pay up or lose the collateral. Similar to a mortgage foreclosure.
- have a sufficiently good relationship with the broker that they know you're good for unlimited losses, and are willing to take the risk that you go bankrupt and put that risk on the broker's own balance sheet.
Brokers observe that a trade which has gone sufficiently far out of the money isn't coming back, and therefore prefer to liquidate early rather than get into deep losses.
A put option is the option to sell a stock at a certain price on a certain date. If you are buying put options, your exposure is only the cost of what you paid for those options. If the stock price rises and remains above the strike price of your put options on expiration day, your puts simply expire and become worthless. If you are selling put options your maximum exposure is the difference between the strike price and $0, as the stock cannot fall below $0.
This is distinct from short selling where you are essentially borrowing shares and you have to buy them back later at whatever the market price is. That is where your potential loss is theoretically infinite as there is no upper limit to how high the share price can go. The same can be said for selling call options (when you don't own the underlying shares, which is called selling covered calls). When you sell call options, you are essentially selling the right for someone to buy shares at a fixed price on a fixed date. If the shares soar above that price, and you don't own the underlying shares, you are forced to buy those shares at whatever the market price (which theoretically has no upper bound) is and sell them to the option holder at the fixed price of the call.
The catch is that if the value of the asset drops, you still need to be able to cover your loan with the asset. So if you bought 1 share for $100, you can leverage it to buy 1 additional share. But it's important to note that the actual cash value of your account is still only $100.
If the share price drops to $50, then you will likely face liquidation. Why? Because you're still responsible for the $100 loan. If you get liquidated, you're forced to sell your two shares for $50 each, $100 total. But then you have to pay back the loan, so you end up with $0.
The upside, however, is that if the share price went up to $150, you could sell your two shares for $150 each ($300 total), pay back the $100 loan, and end up with $200 net.
> and if there are (or not) any mild-leverage alternatives without liquidation
The only way to do this is to borrow at a lower ratio. ie, $100 of your own cash, then borrow $20 to buy 0.2 shares. The $100 share price would have to drop to ~$17 before liquidation occurs.
For brokers to remain solvent, liquidation must occur if the value of the asset drops below the value of the loan.
Sounds like something out of Squid Game. /s