On the evening of September 10 (Beijing time), Bitcoin prices suddenly fell back, triggering approximately $129 million in liquidations across the network within just one hour, including about $122 million in long positions and approximately $7.3162 million in short positions. The liquidations related to BTC and ETH were approximately $35.114 million and $48.972 million respectively, with leveraged longs being the main pressure point in this round of intense volatility. According to a single source, well-known trader Huang Licheng's related address made significant adjustments within about two hours: first reducing positions by selling approximately 9,575 ETH in batches and disposing of HYPE positions, followed by slightly replenishing about 2,000 ETH, while approximately 309 BTC long positions were passively liquidated during the rapid price drop, incurring a loss of about $260,000, with the overall value of positions being approximately $87.11 million, leading to an unrealized loss of about $1.469 million in this round of volatility. Among these, a single leveraged ETH long position held about 33,000 ETH, with an unrealized loss of about $1.076 million, highlighting the vulnerability of high-leverage accounts in the sudden drop. More significantly, on the same day, researchers from organizations such as Theta Labs, the Ethereum Foundation, and StarkWare released a new argument regarding quantum attacks on BTC and ETH, stating that the resources required for key computational parts had decreased by more than 50% compared to previous estimates, with the quantum circuit design requiring only about 1,151 logical qubits. Although existing materials did not provide a practical timeline for attacks, nor did they prove a direct correlation with the evening market trend, this implies that on the same trading day, BTC and ETH bulls faced both the immediate liquidation pressure of leveraged positions and the long-term uncertainty posed by quantum technology challenges to underlying security assumptions.

Liquidation of 129 million in one hour: Bulls become the main victims

According to AiCoin data, during the critical hour following Bitcoin's sudden downward turn on the evening of September 10, the total liquidation scale across the network was about $129 million, of which nearly $122 million was from long positions, accounting for almost the entirety, while short positions faced liquidations of only about $7.3162 million. The extreme asymmetry in direction indicates that this rapid drop primarily involved the liquidation of previously accumulated long leverage, while shorts did not bear a comparable level of passive liquidation pressure.

From the perspective of asset structure, during the same hour, the liquidations related to ETH totaled approximately $48.972 million, while BTC-related liquidations were about $35.114 million. Together, these two amounts account for a significant portion of network-wide liquidations, indicating that the high-leverage positions in mainstream assets were under concentrated pressure during this fluctuation. It is important to emphasize that this is merely a snapshot from a single source within one hour, lacking longer time-dimensional comparisons and market segment breakdowns. The current data only confirms that liquidations were concentrated in the long position direction within a short time frame, reflecting the previously crowded reality of long leverage, and is insufficient to deduce specific price declines or triggering causes.

Brother Maji's two-hour adjustment: ETH reduction and BTC long position liquidation

From the on-chain timeline, during the evening's market volatility, Huang Licheng's related address made significant adjustments within about two hours. From 19:41 to 21:13, his address sold approximately 9,575 ETH in batches, with a transaction volume of about $23.23 million, exhibiting a proactive contraction of spot and long exposure during the down phase. Subsequently, from 21:36 to 21:41, he replenished approximately 2,000 ETH, worth about $4.85 million, indicating that the response to the sharp drop was not a one-sided retreat but an attempt to reallocate some chips at lower prices. Besides ETH, there were also actions taken to reduce HYPE holdings, but currently, only directional changes can be confirmed, while specific quantities and amounts have not been made public, resulting in this account's asset portfolio showing a clear bias towards reducing the weight of volatile assets during this window.

In contrast to the proactive adjustments in spot and token positions, the changes in his BTC leverage positions were more passive and concentrated. According to a single source's statistics, approximately 309 BTC long positions were fully liquidated about one hour prior, incurring a loss of about $260,000, with the liquidation being passively triggered rather than self-terminated. After liquidation, the overall value of the address's positions remained approximately $87.11 million, but it recorded an unrealized loss of about $1.469 million during this rapid drop, reflecting that, under a larger account size, even short-term price fluctuations can lead to significant unrealized losses on the books. The aggregated on-chain data presents a distinct characteristic: within the hour-level window of concentrated liquidations, large long accounts rapidly reduced and replenished mainstream asset spots while simultaneously bearing the losses brought about by passive liquidations of high-leverage BTC positions. Their risk exposure and deleveraging paths were thoroughly recorded on-chain.

The fragile side of high-leverage longs: Position allocation amplifies losses

According to AiCoin data, in this round of rapid declines, the greatest risk exposure related to Huang Licheng's address was not from the passively liquidated BTC but rather a single ETH long position using about 25 times leverage: holding approximately 33,000 ETH with a position value of about $80.124 million and an unrealized loss of about $1.076 million (according to a single source). In terms of position structure, this single ETH position covered almost the entire value of its approximately $87.11 million overall position value, with the single loss also accounting for a significant portion of the total unrealized losses of about $1.469 million. This high leverage magnified every unit price fluctuation in terms of margin, amplifying the impact of this short-term intense volatility on the books.

In contrast, the approximately 309 BTC long positions were all liquidated that evening, resulting in a loss of about $260,000, a figure far lower than the unrealized losses of the aforementioned ETH position. The comparison vividly illustrates the cumulative effect of position allocation and leverage multiples: concentrating on a single large, high-leverage asset in the total portfolio heightens risk during sharp declines on a few contracts. Even if part of the positions has been passively or actively reduced, the remaining exposure still exerts a decisive influence on overall gains and losses. In this structure, large accounts need to adjust the ratio of contracts to spot positions with a higher frequency during intense market fluctuations, objectively compressing their leverage exposure through rapid adjustments. However, on-chain data can only show their operational path in the risk exposure process, without extending to infer the underlying subjective decision-making motives.

Same day quantum attack cost lowered: Long-term concerns for BTC/ETH

In conjunction with the passive exposure risk of leveraged positions during price fluctuations, researchers from organizations such as Theta Labs, the Ethereum Foundation, and StarkWare jointly released a new argument regarding quantum attacks on BTC and ETH on the same day. According to a single source's information, the core conclusion of this study is that the resources required to implement quantum attacks on key computational parts of the two major public chains have decreased by more than 50% compared to previous estimates from Google's quantum team, with the new quantum circuit design requiring only about 1,151 logical qubits. This number is significantly lower than the commonly cited resource demand in the past, indicating that in theoretical models, the threshold for “breaking” existing cryptographic foundations has been markedly lowered, and the mainstream public chain ecosystem's technical focus on quantum threats has not waned but is continuously refining towards specific resource parameters.

Currently, publicly available materials have not provided the title, journal, and complete technical route of the paper. The quantifiable signals that the market can capture are limited to the reduction in resource demands and the scale of logical qubits, making it challenging to extrapolate a timeline for quantum computing's actual attacks on BTC and ETH. From a pricing logic perspective, this development has more implications for long-term security expectations: on one hand, it reinforces the community's need for counter-quantum strategies, key management upgrades, and similar topics, which may influence discussions and the pace of technical roadmap choices in the coming years; on the other hand, existing facts have not proven that this theoretical study has a direct causal relationship with the dramatic drop in Bitcoin prices that evening. The reduction in quantum attack costs remains at a dimension of uncertainty regarding mid-to-long-term security frameworks, rather than immediately changing the current risk levels of on-chain assets.

Short-term liquidation and long-term security: What should bulls look out for next?

According to AiCoin data, the most direct signal of this rapid decline at the short-term level is that bulls encountered approximately $129 million in liquidations across the network within one hour, of which approximately $122 million were from long positions, with ETH and BTC recording liquidation scales of about $48.972 million and $35.114 million respectively. This shows that leveraged bulls in mainstream assets faced significant concentrated pressure under instantaneous fluctuations. Huang Licheng's related address sold approximately 9,575 ETH in batches from 19:41 to 21:13, followed by a slight replenishment of about 2,000 ETH, during which about 309 BTC long positions were fully liquidated, incurring a loss of about $260,000. The overall position value was approximately $87.11 million with an unrealized loss of about $1.469 million, among which a single leveraged ETH long position held about 33,000 ETH with an unrealized loss of about $1.076 million, constituting a typical sample of the risks exposed by high leverage. In terms of long-term security, the new argument regarding quantum attacks publicly released on the same day lowered the resource demands for attacking critical computational parts of BTC and ETH by more than 50% compared to previous estimates, with quantum circuit design requiring only about 1,151 logical qubits. Although this development did not change the current risk level of existing assets, it has pushed counter-quantum upgrades to a more urgent agenda. Overall, important variables to closely monitor moving forward include whether the overall leverage usage level in the mainstream contract market experiences structural contraction or again rises after the intense fluctuations, whether large addresses like Huang Licheng change their position adjustment rhythms and leverage preferences in similar markets, and the technological evolution and community discussions on counter-quantum cryptographic schemes for BTC and ETH. These on-chain and technological changes will profoundly shape the medium-to-long-term risk and security framework for bulls compared to short-term price fluctuations.

Join our community, let's discuss together and become stronger!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

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。