The cryptocurrency markets experienced their darkest hour on October 10, 2025, when reportedly at least $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated in what became the largest single-day destruction of wealth in digital asset history. Initially dismissed as an overreaction to President Trump’s surprise announcement of 100% tariffs on Chinese imports, subsequent analysis revealed a far more sinister reality: a sophisticated, coordinated attack that weaponized geopolitical uncertainty to exploit critical vulnerabilities in the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.
This article examines how attackers turned Binance’s own risk management system against its users, generating nearly $200 million in profits while devastating retail and institutional investors alike. The events of October 10th represent more than just a market crash, they expose fundamental flaws in cryptocurrency market infrastructure that threaten the industry’s path toward institutional legitimacy.
President Trump’s late-evening announcement of 100% tariffs on all Chinese imports, effective November 1, 2025, sent shockwaves through global financial markets. The S&P 500 fell over 2%, the Dow Jones dropped nearly 900 points, and the VIX volatility index spiked 29% in one of its largest single-day increases ever. Traditional markets were clearly rattled, but the cryptocurrency sector’s reaction would prove disproportionately severe.
The timing of Trump’s announcement was particularly significant. Coming after Bitcoin had reached new all-time highs above $122,000 and Ethereum had surged past $4,300, the tariff news provided the perfect catalyst for a leveraged market correction. However, what followed was far from a natural market adjustment.
At the heart of the crisis lay a fundamental flaw in Binance’s Unified Account system. The exchange allowed users to borrow against volatile assets like USDe (Ethena’s synthetic dollar), wBETH (wrapped Beacon ETH), and BNSOL (Binance’s Solana derivative) as collateral. Crucially, the system valued these assets based solely on Binance’s own spot market prices, ignoring external price feeds or cross-exchange validation.
This design created a dangerous single point of failure. If someone could manipulate the price of these assets specifically on Binance, they could trigger cascading liquidations regardless of how those assets traded elsewhere. The vulnerability was particularly acute because Binance had been aggressively promoting these assets through high-yield programs, USDe, for instance, offered 12% annual returns, attracting users who believed they were investing in stable, low-risk products.
The attackers‘ timing was no coincidence. On October 6, Binance had announced plans to transition from internal pricing to external oracle feeds for these collateral assets, with implementation scheduled for October 14. This created an eight-day window during which sophisticated actors could exploit the vulnerability with the knowledge that it would soon be closed, a perfect setup for a coordinated attack.
The manipulation began days before the tariff announcement with careful positioning across multiple platforms. Unknown entities accumulated massive short positions on Bitcoin and Ethereum, primarily on Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetual futures exchange. By October 10, these positions totaled $1.1 billion, funded by $110 million in USDC transferred from various Arbitrum-based addresses.
The most damning evidence of coordination came in the final moments before Trump’s announcement. The attackers opened their largest short position at exactly one minute before the tariff tweet went live. This timing precision, combined with the massive scale of the trade, strongly suggests either insider knowledge of the political announcement or remarkable coincidence that defies statistical probability.
Within minutes of Trump’s tariff announcement, coordinated selling pressure began hitting the order books for USDe, wBETH, and BNSOL specifically on Binance. This wasn’t random panic selling, the attacks were surgically precise, designed to exhaust buy-side liquidity without triggering Binance’s manipulation detection systems.
The results were devastating and immediate. USDe, which maintained its dollar peg on other exchanges, crashed to $0.65 on Binance. wBETH collapsed from its normal trading range to just $0.20, while BNSOL fell to $0.13. These price movements were entirely artificial and localized to Binance, but the exchange’s risk management system treated them as legitimate market prices.
As collateral values plummeted, Binance’s automated systems began issuing margin calls and liquidating positions. Users who had borrowed against USDe, believing it to be a stable asset, watched helplessly as their collateral was valued at 35 cents on the dollar while the same asset traded normally elsewhere. The liquidations created additional selling pressure, which drove prices lower still, triggering more liquidations in a devastating feedback loop.
The cascade was amplified by „looping“ strategies that many users had employed, borrowing stablecoins against USDe collateral to purchase more USDe, creating leveraged exposure to what they believed was a risk-free asset. When USDe depegged, these positions became massively underwater almost instantly, with no possibility of recovery.
The numbers tell a story of unprecedented market destruction. Over $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated in a 24-hour period, affecting 1.7 million individual traders. The largest single liquidation was a $203 million ETH position on Hyperliquid, but thousands of smaller retail accounts were completely wiped out. However, the $19 billion liquidation figure represents only the currently known losses. Technical limitations during the crisis, particularly API throttling on Binance (which controls approximately 90% of perpetuals open interest), captured only an estimated 5% of actual liquidations. Independent analysts suggest the true scale may have reached $300-400 billion, indicating that the actual reduction in open interest could have approached or exceeded 50% of all outstanding derivatives positions.
The liquidations were concentrated on specific platforms: Hyperliquid saw $10.3 billion in forced closures, Bybit experienced $4.6 billion, and Binance itself recorded $2.4 billion. The remaining liquidations were spread across OKX and other major derivatives exchanges as the contagion spread throughout the ecosystem.
While the initial manipulation was confined to Binance, its effects rapidly propagated across the entire cryptocurrency market. As users were liquidated on Binance, they were forced to sell Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major cryptocurrencies to meet margin calls. This genuine selling pressure, combined with algorithmic trading systems that propagate prices across exchanges, pushed major cryptocurrencies sharply lower everywhere.
Bitcoin fell from over $122,000 to below $102,000, generating $5.3 billion in long liquidations. Ethereum dropped from above $4,300 to $3,373, with $4.4 billion in positions forcibly closed. Even Solana, which wasn’t directly involved in the Binance manipulation, saw $2 billion in liquidations as the panic spread.
The crisis exposed critical weaknesses in cryptocurrency exchange infrastructure. As trading volumes spiked to unprecedented levels, multiple exchanges experienced technical failures precisely when users needed to manage their risk most urgently. Order books froze, mobile applications crashed, and transaction processing ground to a halt across Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, and other major platforms.
These technical failures weren’t merely inconvenient, they were catastrophic for users trying to add collateral, close positions, or otherwise manage their exposure. Many traders found themselves locked out of their accounts during the most critical hours, unable to prevent their positions from being liquidated at the worst possible prices.
The evidence for coordinated manipulation is overwhelming. Beyond the suspicious timing of the short positions, blockchain analysis reveals that major market makers executed significant token transfers and reduced their liquidity provision on Binance in the hours before the manipulation began. While these firms have denied wrongdoing, the timing suggests either remarkable prescience or advance knowledge of the impending attack.
The isolation of the price impact to Binance provides perhaps the clearest evidence of manipulation. In legitimate market stress, assets typically move in the same direction across all venues, with only minor price differences due to liquidity variations. The fact that USDe maintained its peg above $0.90 on other exchanges while crashing to $0.65 on Binance is a textbook example of localized manipulation.
The attackers‘ profit from the manipulation was substantial and immediate. The coordinated short positions generated approximately $192 million in realized gains, a 175% return on the $110 million in capital deployed. This enormous profit, extracted from the losses of retail and institutional investors, demonstrates the financial incentive behind the attack and suggests the involvement of well-capitalized, sophisticated actors.
The October 10 crisis starkly illustrated the dangers of excessive centralization in cryptocurrency markets. Binance’s dominant position, accounting for approximately 40-50% of global cryptocurrency trading volume, meant that vulnerabilities in its systems could destabilize the entire market. This concentration risk is particularly dangerous in cryptocurrency markets, which lack the circuit breakers and regulatory safeguards that protect traditional financial systems.
The interconnected nature of modern cryptocurrency trading, with arbitrage algorithms and cross-exchange strategies linking prices globally, means that manipulation on one platform can rapidly spread throughout the ecosystem. The crisis demonstrated that the cryptocurrency market’s claimed decentralization is largely illusory when a single exchange can trigger system-wide chaos.
The crisis exposed fundamental flaws in how cryptocurrency exchanges approach risk management. Binance’s reliance on internal pricing for collateral valuation created an obvious vulnerability that sophisticated actors could exploit. This approach stands in stark contrast to traditional financial markets, where multiple price sources and independent validation mechanisms provide greater resilience against manipulation.
The incident has accelerated discussions about implementing standardized oracle systems and cross-exchange price validation. However, such reforms face significant technical and commercial challenges, as exchanges are reluctant to cede control over their internal risk management processes or share sensitive trading data with competitors.
Despite the unprecedented turbulence, Q21 ZeroBeta once again demonstrated the robustness of our approach. Our disciplined market-neutral framework, systematic volatility harvesting, and stringent risk controls allowed us to navigate the crisis without material losses.
As of October 12th, our MTD performance remains slightly positive, a testament to the resilience of our target managers’ strategies and to the expertise of our portfolio management team in due diligence and portfolio construction.
We cannot overstate how proud we are of our team and our managers for navigating such an unprecedented event successfully. We extend our sincere gratitude to all our underlying fund managers, whose performance under extreme conditions was instrumental in achieving this outcome, and to our investors for the continued trust they have placed in us.
With this milestone, Q21 ZeroBeta is on track to deliver the 35th consecutive month of positive returns, a remarkable achievement in the digital asset space.
We care about your data. Read our privacy policy.