Where forced exposure is clustered.
Observed liquidation-price clusters for Hyperliquid positions, with the scan age, coverage and account defensibility behind every figure.
Forced exposure by price
Bar height is observed notional. Longs sit below the observed mark, shorts above it. Stronger fill means more of the cluster is held by wallets with zero free collateral.
Observed clusters
Each row is one observed liquidation-price cluster: the zone is which side gets forced, the price is where that forcing triggers, and exposure is how much notional sits at that level. Wallet counts are observed totals, never identities — Genesis does not attribute clusters to specific accounts.
| Zone | Liquidation price | From mark | Observed notional | Wallets | Defense |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shorts | $80,786 | +2.5% | $22.7M | 3 | 100% |
| Longs | $77,239 | -2.0% | $9.7M | 2 | 100% |
| Shorts | $80,392 | +2.0% | $4.4M | 5 | 100% |
| Longs | $76,845 | -2.5% | $3.5M | 1 | 100% |
| Longs | $76,451 | -3.0% | $3.2M | 5 | 100% |
| Shorts | $79,998 | +1.5% | $2.7M | 3 | 100% |
| Shorts | $79,210 | +0.5% | $1.5M | 4 | 40% |
| Shorts | $82,362 | +4.5% | $1.3M | 3 | 100% |
| Shorts | $79,604 | +1.0% | $1.2M | 5 | 86% |
| Shorts | $86,303 | +9.5% | $1.1M | 4 | 68% |
| Longs | $77,633 | -1.5% | $894.7K | 4 | 100% |
| Shorts | $82,756 | +5.0% | $823.9K | 3 | 100% |
| Shorts | $83,544 | +6.0% | $631.8K | 3 | 100% |
| Longs | $75,663 | -4.0% | $631.2K | 3 | 100% |
| Shorts | $85,909 | +9.0% | $538.4K | 2 | 0% |
| Longs | $72,116 | -8.5% | $535.8K | 1 | 100% |
| Shorts | $83,150 | +5.5% | $524.1K | 3 | 88% |
| Longs | $71,722 | -9.0% | $497.9K | 2 | 11% |
| Longs | $74,087 | -6.0% | $483.4K | 1 | 100% |
| Longs | $78,027 | -1.0% | $425.7K | 1 | 0% |
| Longs | $73,692 | -6.5% | $398.0K | 2 | 100% |
| Longs | $75,269 | -4.5% | $284.9K | 1 | 0% (100% incl. thin margin) |
| Longs | $72,510 | -8.0% | $234.1K | 1 | 100% |
| Shorts | $85,515 | +8.5% | $179.8K | 2 | 100% |
| Longs | $78,421 | -0.5% | $176.2K | 2 | 100% |
| Shorts | $81,968 | +4.0% | $124.1K | 2 | 32% |
| Shorts | $83,939 | +6.5% | $107.3K | 2 | 100% |
| Shorts | $84,333 | +7.0% | $106.6K | 1 | 100% |
| Shorts | $81,574 | +3.5% | $90.5K | 1 | 100% |
| Shorts | $85,121 | +8.0% | $89.4K | 2 | 100% |
| Longs | $73,298 | -7.0% | $48.4K | 1 | 100% |
| Shorts | $81,180 | +3.0% | $40.5K | 1 | 0% |
| Longs | $71,328 | -9.5% | $30.2K | 1 | 100% |
| Longs | $76,057 | -3.5% | $28.7K | 1 | 100% |
| Longs | $72,904 | -7.5% | $27.7K | 1 | 0% |
What this does and does not mean
every figure below is a LOWER BOUND -- forced flow from wallets outside this scan is invisible
- that reaching a cluster causes a further price move -- tested on Binance and it did not beat a volatility-matched control (F-0010)
- anything about clusters we cannot see; coverage is stated above
- cannot defend pct
- share of cluster notional held by wallets with ZERO free collateral. They cannot move their liquidation price without depositing from outside. Requires `withdrawable`, which is not derivable from position and margin data (F-0001).
- thinly defended pct
- free collateral below 5% of maintenance margin
Take this into a real investigation.
See which observed BTC accounts actually changed exposure, ranked by disclosed attention.
Watch an accountTrack a specific account-market pair and see what changed since your last visit.
Set a liquidation-distance alertSave a distance threshold on a watched account. Isobath checks every five minutes and delivers through Telegram.