Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
6) Well, this looked like it was happening today. There was $1m per 25bps or so on the orderbook, and constant $10m liqs. I think R was, in fact, > 1.
3
94
SBF
@SBF_FTX
8) Well, for one thing, BitMEX stopped moving down their liqs, even if they weren't filled. They just sat there......... Hoping. Hoping that someone would lift it. But no one did.
3
102
SBF
@SBF_FTX
9) Things kept grinding down as they sloooooowly lowered their liq offer. All the way down to $3.7k.
1
99
SBF
@SBF_FTX
10) But they didn't work it aggressively, they kept on hoping it would just go away. That's NOT how a liquidation engine works. A liquidation engine's primary job is to save the insurance fund and other customers, even if that has significant market impact.
2
136
SBF
@SBF_FTX
11) And then, when things were teetering on the edge, with quarterly premiums at -15%....... BitMEX went down for maintenance.
2
120
SBF
@SBF_FTX
12) BTC rallied without the gigantic sell wall of the BitMEX liq. And even more than that--BTC rallied, so fewer people *had* to be liquidated..... Creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we could will BTC up above $5k, maybe then it would no longer *need* to go down.
1
140
SBF
@SBF_FTX
13) So why did BitMEX go down for maintenance? And why was their liq engine so aggressiveness today? Was it organic?
2
103
SBF
@SBF_FTX
14) Or did BitMEX realize that they had a choice? They could liquidate BTC down to 0..... Or they could go down for an hour, let BTC rally, release some of the liq pressure, and hopefully catch a positive feedback loop removing the need to ever liq the BTC.
6
177
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
17) (By which I mean--people couldn't buy on BitMEX unless they had BTC physically there.... And then they'd risk themselves getting liquidated in the cascade, with none of their short hedges offsetting their risk engine, and a congested blockchain preventing topping up.)
4
118