永续的算法镰刀：清算的美学——论强制的技巧……Algorithmic Scythe of Perpetuals: The Aesthetics of Liquidation — On the Craft of Forced…

永续合约的算法镰刀：清算的美学——论强制清算的技巧和交易所弹性原创作者 | danny (@agintender)编译器 |Wu区块链 Aki Chen 原始来源链接：https://x.com/agintender/status/1949790325373026575免责声明：本文为转载文章。读者可以参考原始资料以获取更多信息。如原作者对转载形式有异议，请联系我们，我们将按要求进行修改。转载仅用于信息分享，不构成任何投资建议，也不代表WuBlockchain的观点和立场。平仓、爆仓是每个交易所、每个交易者最终都必须面对的命运。如果说建仓是一件事情的开始——充满了情感、信念和预测——那么平仓就是故事的结束，无论是愿意还是不愿意。 事实上，强制平仓对于交易所来说是一项吃力不讨好的任务：它冒犯了用户，而一个失误可能会毁掉交易所本身——当这种情况发生时，没有人会心慈手软。真正的技巧在于校准：准确地知道在哪里延伸和在哪里握住

还有一点：忽略“财富效应”的噪音——清算机制是交易所的诚信和责任所在。今天我们只讲结构和算法。强制平仓的真正逻辑是什么？强平模式如何维护市场整体稳定？第一部分：永续合约核心风险管理框架永续合约作为一种复杂的衍生品，允许交易者通过杠杆放大资金，创造远超初始保证金收益的可能性。然而，同样的潜力也伴随着相应的——甚至更大的——风险。杠杆不仅会放大预期收益，还会放大损失，使得风险管理成为永续合约交易不可或缺的支柱。

Algorithmic Scythe of Perpetuals: The Aesthetics of Liquidation — On the Craft of Forced Liquidation and Exchange Resilience

Original Author | danny (@agintender)

Compiler |WuBlockchain Aki Chen

Original Source Link:

https://x.com/agintender/status/1949790325373026575

Disclaimer: This article is a reposted piece. Readers may refer to the original source for more information. If the original author has any objections to the form of reposting, please contact us and we will make modifications as requested. The repost is intended solely for information sharing and does not constitute any investment advice, nor does it represent the views or positions of WuBlockchain.

Closing a position and liquidation are a fate every exchange and every trader must eventually confront. If opening a position is the beginning of an affair — laden with emotion, conviction, and projection — then closing is the end of that story, whether willing or reluctant.

In truth, forced liquidation is a thankless task for an exchange: it offends users, and a misstep can blow up the exchange itself — and no one shows mercy when that happens. The real craft lies in calibration: knowing exactly where to extend and where to hold back, how deep to cut and how shallow to pare.

One more point: ignore the noise about “wealth effects” — the liquidation mechanism is where an exchange’s integrity and responsibility reside.

Today we speak only about structure and algorithms. What is the true logic behind forced liquidation? How do liquidation models safeguard the market’s overall stability?

Part I: Core Risk-Management Framework for Perpetual Futures

As a complex derivative, perpetual futures allow traders to amplify capital through leverage, creating the possibility of returns far in excess of initial margin. That same potential, however, comes with commensurate — or greater — risk. Leverage magnifies not only prospective gains but also losses, making risk management an indispensable pillar of perpetuals trading.

At the heart of the framework is the effective containment and resolution of systemic risk arising from high leverage. It is not a single mechanism, but a multi-layered, interlinked, and sequentially triggered defense stack — a terraced risk-control process. Its purpose is to confine losses stemming from individual-account liquidations to a controllable range, preventing spillover and protecting the integrity of the broader trading ecosystem.

In short: channel the force of a waterfall into the suppleness of a stream — permeable yet without leakage, firmness tempered by flexibility.

Three Pillars of Risk Mitigation

Exchanges rely on three primary pillars that together form a comprehensive defense — from the individual account to the entire system, and from routine conditions to extremes:

1. Forced Liquidation. The first — and most commonly used — line of defense. When market movement pushes a position’s margin balance below maintenance requirements, the exchange’s risk engine intervenes and automatically liquidates the losing position.

2. Insurance Fund. The second line of defense, acting as a systemic buffer. In violent markets, the execution price during liquidation may be worse than the position’s bankruptcy price (the level at which losses fully exhaust posted margin). Any resulting shortfall/negative equity (often called a “socialized loss” risk) is covered by the Insurance Fund.

3. Auto-Deleveraging (ADL). The final, rarely triggered backstop, activated only in extreme/black-swan conditions where a wave of liquidations depletes the Insurance Fund. ADL forcibly reduces the most highly leveraged and most profitable opposing positions to absorb residual shortfalls the fund cannot cover, thereby preserving the exchange’s solvency and the market’s ultimate stability.

These three pillars form a tightly reasoned risk-control chain. The design philosophy can be viewed as an economic “social contract” that defines how risk responsibility is sequentially allocated in a high-risk, leveraged environment:

Trader → Insurance Fund → Auto-Deleveraging (ADL)

First, risk is borne by the individual trader, whose duty is to maintain sufficient margin. When the individual obligation cannot be met, risk is transferred to a collective, pre-funded buffer — the Insurance Fund (capitalized via liquidation fees and related sources). Only in extreme scenarios where this collective buffer is also insufficient does risk pass, via ADL, to the most profitable, highly leveraged opposing positions in the market. This tiered structure is designed to isolate and absorb risk to the greatest extent possible, preserving the health and stability of the trading ecosystem.

Part II: Foundations of Risk — Margin and Leverage

In perpetual futures trading, margin and leverage are the two most fundamental variables determining a trader’s risk exposure and potential P&L scale. A thorough grasp of both concepts — and how they interact — is the prerequisite for effective risk management and avoiding forced liquidation.

Initial Margin vs. Maintenance Margin

Margin is the collateral a trader must deposit and lock to open and maintain a leveraged position. It is defined at two key levels:

● Initial Margin (IM). The minimum amount of collateral required to open a leveraged position — the “ticket of admission” to leverage. It is typically position notional ÷ leverage. For example, to open a USDT 10,000 position with 10× leverage, the trader must post USDT 1,000 as initial margin.

● Maintenance Margin (MM). The minimum collateral required to keep an existing position open. This is a dynamic threshold, lower than IM. When adverse price moves cause the trader’s margin balance (initial margin ± unrealized P&L) to fall to the maintenance margin level, the forced-liquidation process is triggered.

● Maintenance Margin Ratio (MMR). The minimum collateralization rate — i.e., the minimum margin-to-notional percentage that must be maintained to avoid liquidation. Breaching the MMR triggers liquidation.

Margin Regimes: A Comparative Analysis

Exchanges typically offer several margin modes to meet different risk-management needs. The three primary ones are:

● Isolated Margin. Margin is allocated per position. The risk is ring-fenced: if forced liquidation occurs, the maximum loss is limited to the margin assigned to that position, without affecting other funds or positions in the account.

● Cross Margin. All available account equity (including unrealized P&L from other positions) is treated as a shared margin pool across positions. Losses on one position can be offset by free balance or unrealized gains elsewhere, reducing single-position liquidation risk. The trade-off is that, once liquidation is triggered, the trader can lose the entire account equity, not just the margin earmarked for one position.

● Portfolio Margin. A more sophisticated, risk-based margining regime designed for institutions and advanced traders. Margin requirements are computed from the net risk of the entire portfolio (spanning spot, futures, options, etc.), recognizing hedge offsets among positions. Well-hedged, diversified portfolios can receive substantially lower margin requirements, materially improving capital efficiency.

Tiered Margin (Risk Limits)

To prevent a single trader’s oversized position from causing severe liquidity shocks during liquidation, exchanges commonly implement tiered margin, also called risk limits. The core logic is straightforward: the larger the position, the greater the risk, and thus the tighter the required controls.

Concretely, the position’s notional value is segmented into multiple tiers. As a trader’s position moves up the tiers, the platform automatically applies two adjustments:

1. Lower maximum allowable leverage. Larger positions are capped at lower leverage multiples.

2. Higher Maintenance Margin Ratio (MMR). The larger the position, the higher the maintenance margin required as a percentage of notional.

This design effectively prevents traders from using high leverage to build systemically hazardous positions. It is an embedded, risk-reducing mechanism that compels large accounts to de-risk as their exposure grows.

Tiered margin (risk limits) is not merely a risk knob; it is the exchange’s core instrument for managing market liquidity and preventing liquidation cascades. A single, large forced-liquidation order — e.g., from a highly levered whale account — can vacuum order-book liquidity across multiple price levels in an instant, printing a sharp downtick with a long lower wick. That sudden plunge may in turn trip the liquidation thresholds of positions that were otherwise safe, setting off a domino effect (for the exchange, this is a negative-equity/shortfall risk).

By imposing lower maximum leverage and higher maintenance-margin requirements on larger positions, the venue materially increases the difficulty for any single actor to assemble a fragile, jumbo position capable of triggering such chain reactions. Higher margin functions as a thicker buffer, able to absorb more violent price shocks and thus shield the ecosystem from the systemic risk of concentrated exposures.

As an illustration, Bitget’s tiered-margin schedule for the BTCUSDT perpetual shows how this risk-management mechanism is applied in practice.

The table makes explicit the inverse relationship between risk and leverage — required margin scales linearly with position size. Once a BTCUSDT position’s notional exceeds USDT 150,000, the maximum allowable leverage is cut from 125× to 100×, while the maintenance margin rate (MMR) increases from 0.40% to 0.50%.

Part III: Liquidation Triggers — Understanding the Key Price References

To execute forced liquidations precisely and fairly, an exchange’s risk engine does not rely on the rapidly fluctuating last-trade price. Instead, it uses a purpose-built set of reference prices.

Mark Price vs. Last Traded Price

● Last Price. The price of the most recent trade on the exchange’s order book. It reflects immediate buy–sell activity and is susceptible to single large prints or short-lived bursts of sentiment.

● Mark Price. A price computed by the exchange specifically for liquidation triggering, intended to approximate the contract’s fair/true value. Unlike the Last Price, the Mark Price aggregates multiple data sources and is constructed to smooth short-term distortions, preventing unnecessary or unfair liquidations caused by thin liquidity, manipulation, or momentary “needle/wick” moves. On modern venues, unrealized P&L and liquidation checks are run off the Mark Price rather than the Last Price.

The method for computing the Mark Price is broadly similar across venues and typically includes these core components:

1. Index Price. A composite price derived by taking a weighted average of the asset’s spot prices across multiple major global exchanges.

2. Funding Basis. To keep the perpetual price anchored near spot, a premium/discount term — i.e., the basis between the contract and the index price — is incorporated.

By combining these inputs, the Mark Price offers a more stable and reliable read on fair value and serves as the sole reference for triggering forced liquidations.

Liquidation Price vs. Bankruptcy Price

Within the Mark Price framework, two threshold levels determine a trader’s fate:

● Liquidation Price. A specific Mark Price level at which the position is triggered for forced liquidation. It corresponds to the point where the trader’s margin balance (initial margin ± unrealized P&L) has fallen to the maintenance margin requirement. (The liquidation price is the trigger for liquidation.)

● Bankruptcy Price. Another level derived from the Mark Price, representing the point at which the trader’s initial margin is fully exhausted — i.e., account equity = 0. (The bankruptcy price is the reference used for liquidation accounting; executions worse than this level create a shortfall that must be absorbed by the insurance fund/ADL.)

Importantly, the liquidation price is always reached before the bankruptcy price.

The price band between the liquidation price and the bankruptcy price constitutes the risk engine’s operational buffer zone. The clearing system’s efficiency is tested within this narrow corridor.

In simple terms, the higher the leverage and the lower the initial margin rate, the narrower this buffer becomes. For example, with 100× leverage, the initial margin rate is just 1%, while the maintenance margin rate might be 0.5%. This means that from entry to liquidation trigger, the trader has only 0.5% of price room.

Example: You open a 100× long. Intuitively, a −1% move would “bankrupt” the position. However, because the maintenance margin rate is 0.5%, a −0.5% move (on the Mark Price) triggers liquidation, and the position is then closed against the bankruptcy price, which corresponds to a −1% move.

This direct linkage between leverage and fragility is the core reason why ultra-high-leverage trading is extraordinarily risky — often in ways that defy intuition.

If the liquidation engine can close the position within this band at an execution better than the bankruptcy price, the residual surplus is credited to the Insurance Fund, and the user does not end up owing the venue.

Conversely, if extreme volatility or a liquidity vacuum leads to execution worse than the bankruptcy price, the resulting shortfall (”negative equity”) must be covered by the Insurance Fund — and, if the fund proves insufficient, by ADL or other venue-specific loss-allocation measures (in some cases, user clawbacks).

Part IV: Forced-Liquidation Workflow — A Step-by-Step Overview

When a position reaches a critical risk point — i.e., the Mark Price touches the Liquidation Price — the exchange’s risk engine immediately initiates a standardized, fully automated forced-liquidation workflow. This process is designed to close the risky exposure in an orderly manner while minimizing market impact.

A brief aside: set the “get-rich” narratives aside — the liquidation mechanism is the true measure of an exchange’s integrity and stewardship.

Liquidation Trigger

The workflow begins when the liquidation condition is met: the Mark Price reaches or breaches the pre-computed Liquidation Price. At the system level, this is equivalent to the position’s Maintenance Margin Ratio (MMR) hitting 100%. Once triggered, the trader loses control of the position; all subsequent actions are taken over by the risk engine.

After the trigger, the position is handed to the liquidation engine and internally booked at the Bankruptcy Price (which is less favorable than the Liquidation Price). The relationship between these two prices captures the core logic of forced liquidation: the exchange’s risk engine initiates the liquidation process as soon as the Liquidation Price is touched, striving to complete the close-out before the Bankruptcy Price is reached.

From Waterfall to Stream: How the Engine Tames a Liquidation Wave

Once the risk engine takes over, it typically executes the following steps in a preset order (venue implementations vary):

1. Cancel open orders.

The first step is to immediately cancel all unfilled orders associated with the risky position.In Isolated Margin, the system cancels all open/add orders for that trading pair.In Cross Margin, the system may cancel any orders across the account that could increase risk exposure.

2. Partial / tiered liquidation.

For large positions in higher risk tiers, the engine does not dump the entire position at once. Instead, it uses a more prudent stepwise liquidation (i.e., partial close-outs). The system computes how much must be reduced to bring the account’s Maintenance Margin Ratio (MMR) back below 100%, and only that slice is sent to market for execution. By decomposing a big liquidation into multiple smaller clips, the engine materially reduces immediate market impact and helps avoid cascade triggers. (Some confuse partial liquidation with ADL; it is not ADL.)

3. Full close-out.

If, after partial liquidation, the MMR remains ≥ 100%, or if the position already sits in the lowest risk tier (no further step-down possible), the engine takes over the remainder of the position and submits market orders to execute at the best available prices on the book until the position is fully closed.

The stepwise liquidation mechanism is a key marker of risk-management maturity at modern crypto-derivatives venues. Early platforms often used an “all-or-nothing” liquidation model — simple to implement, but extremely risky. Forcing a large position out via an instant market order easily produces a sharp flash wick, which in turn trips other traders’ liquidation thresholds and sets off a destructive liquidation cascade.

Liquidation Fees

When a position is forcibly liquidated, the trader — beyond bearing the loss on the position itself — typically pays an additional liquidation fee (also called a clearance/liquidation charge). This fee rate is usually higher than standard trading fees.

Why it exists:

● Incentivize proactive risk management. The elevated fee encourages traders to manage risk actively — for example, by placing stop-loss orders or manually closing positions as they approach the liquidation price — rather than passively waiting for the system to act.

● Capitalize the Insurance Fund. Liquidation fees are a primary funding source for the Insurance Fund. Exchanges allocate collected liquidation fees to this pool to cover future negative-equity shortfalls, thereby supporting the health of the overall risk-management framework.

Part V: The Safety Net — Insurance Fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL)

Once the forced-liquidation workflow is initiated, the system’s core challenge is to close the position at prices better than the bankruptcy price before the trader’s margin is exhausted. Under extreme market conditions, this is not always achievable. To address any resulting negative-equity shortfalls, exchanges deploy two critical, system-level safety nets: the Insurance Fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL).

Insurance Fund

1. Core purpose. The Insurance Fund is a pool established and administered by the exchange to cover negative-equity shortfalls arising from forced liquidations. When a liquidated position’s execution price ends up worse than its bankruptcy price, the trader’s loss exceeds posted margin; the Insurance Fund steps in to fill the deficit.

2. Sources of capital. Primarily two channels:

● Liquidation fees. Exchanges levy an additional liquidation fee on all forcibly closed positions; this is the fund’s most stable and material revenue source.

● Liquidation surplus. If a forced liquidation is executed better than the bankruptcy price, the residual margin remaining after deducting liquidation fees is swept into the Insurance Fund.

3. Transparency & significance. The size and health of the Insurance Fund are key indicators of an exchange’s loss-absorbing capacity. Reputable venues typically disclose the fund’s balances (and, in some cases, public wallet addresses) on a periodic or real-time basis to demonstrate transparency and solvency.

4. Industry practice. Major exchanges — Binance, OKX, Bybit, Bitget, among others — maintain Insurance Funds as a strategic commitment to market confidence. Doing so reduces the risk that, during a market crash — precisely when the fund is needed most — the platform faces uncovered shortfalls. Accordingly, when selecting a venue, traders should look beyond fees and product menus to assess the fund’s scale, track record, and asset composition — all of which reflect the platform’s long-term stability and user-protection stance.

Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) — The Final Line of Defense

Trigger condition. ADL is the last resort in an exchange’s risk-management stack and is activated only in the most extreme circumstances: when a wave of liquidations produces negative-equity shortfalls that exceed the entire balance of the Insurance Fund.

Core function. ADL is, in essence, a counterparty liquidation. Once the Insurance Fund is depleted, the risk engine automatically selects traders holding opposite-direction positions who rank highest by profitability and leverage, and forcibly reduces part or all of those winning positions. The selected positions are closed at the bankruptcy price of the defaulting position, and the realized proceeds are used to cover the system shortfall.

The existence of ADL ensures that even under the most extreme conditions, the exchange does not fall into a solvency crisis due to uncovered losses, thereby preserving platform continuity. While this is a loss for the selected profitable traders, ADL avoids blanket “socialized losses” across all users and is regarded as the lesser-evil resolution when all other buffers have failed.

Note: Detailed mechanics of ADL are provided in the appendix for readers who wish to dive deeper.

Conclusion: Integrating Risk Management with Trader Responsibility

The risk-management architecture of perpetual futures is a carefully engineered, multi-layered defense, designed to preserve fairness, stability, and continuity in a high-leverage environment. From the individual trader’s margin discipline, to the Insurance Fund as a collective buffer, and — under extremes — the last line of defense, ADL, this cascading, terraced risk-control workflow links each layer to the next, forming a robust bulwark against systemic risk.

Systemic defense — layered logic. The framework embodies a sequential transfer and absorption of risk from the individual to the collective. Forced liquidation first contains losses at the account level, enforcing personal responsibility for position risk. When individual risk overruns and negative-equity shortfalls arise, the Insurance Fund engages, using resources accumulated from prior liquidations to shield other market participants. Only if both lines of defense are breached under extreme stress does ADL intervene, performing counterparty reductions on the most profitable, highly levered opposing positions to preserve the platform’s solvency. Together, these mechanisms are the cornerstone that allows the perps market to function through violent volatility.

Core responsibility of traders. Powerful as the exchange’s automated controls are, the ultimate responsibility for risk lies with the trader. Platform safeguards are baseline protection, not a component of a profit strategy. Relying on forced liquidation as a “final stop-loss” not only incurs additional liquidation fees that erode capital, but may also expose the account to ADL risk in extreme regimes.

Responsible Practices for Leveraged Trading

1. Use risk controls proactively. Before opening any leveraged position, set a sensible stop-loss. This is the most effective way to cap losses and avoid touching the liquidation threshold.

2. Choose leverage prudently. Leverage magnifies risk. Select a leverage multiple that matches your risk tolerance, strategy, and market conditions — do not chase headline returns from high leverage. Understand the implications of notional leverage vs. effective leverage.

3. Understand and monitor margin requirements. Learn the tiered margin (risk-limit) schedule and how the Maintenance Margin Ratio (MMR) steps up with position size. When adding to a position, anticipate how moving into a higher tier will shift your liquidation price.

4. Stay vigilant; monitor actively. Track the distance between your Mark Price and Liquidation Price. In heightened volatility, watch the ADL risk indicator closely; if the risk level rises, promptly de-lever or take partial profits.

Final Words

Liquidation is not a demon — it is the cost of maintaining order in the perps market.

Clearing is not punishment — it is the mechanism that keeps the system alive.

ADL is not prejudice — it is the reluctant, last-resort choice that allows trading to continue.

You may feel strongly; you must still understand the rules. In this game, what counts is never what you “think it’s worth,” but the moment you can afford the cost.

Perpetual futures are not “permanent.” They are simply a redistribution of risk along time.

Know not only what happens, but why it happens.

May we always approach the market with humility and respect.

Appendix: Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) — A Detailed Guide to the Mechanism That Keeps Exchanges in an Unassailable Position

Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) is the exchange’s last-resort risk tool. Its mechanics are intricate but critical for traders running high leverage and large unrealized profits. Understanding its priority rules, execution flow, and how to avoid being selected is essential for any sophisticated perpetual-futures trader.

ADL Priority System

When ADL is triggered, the system does not pick counterparties at random. It follows a strict, risk- and return-based ranking rule. All traders holding opposite-direction positions are placed into a priority queue; those at the top are reduced first.

1. ADL rank formula.

While venues phrase it slightly differently, the core logic is consistent: the ADL score is determined primarily by two variables — PnL Percentage and Effective Leverage.

● For profitable positions:ADL Score = PnL Percentage × Effective Leverage

● For losing positions (rarely selected):ADL Score is typically negative under the same formula, which places such positions at the bottom of the queue.

Definitions (venue-specific in practice):

PnL Percentage ≈ Unrealized PnL / |Position Notional|

Effective Leverage ≈ |Position Notional| / Account Equity (or margin attributed to the position)

Decomposing the Formula’s Core Components

PnL Percentage. The position’s unrealized P&L as a percentage of its entry notional. The larger the profit, the higher this value.

Effective Leverage. The most crucial — and most often misunderstood — term. It is not the leverage multiple selected at entry, but a dynamic leverage that reflects the position’s current risk exposure. Defined as:

Ranking rule.

If PnL% ≥ 0 : ADL Score=PnL × Effective Leverage

If PnL% < 0 :ADL Score=PnL / Effective Leverage

This structure reveals a key dynamic: as a position’s unrealized profit increases, the denominator (equity) grows and effective leverage declines. Conversely, as a position approaches liquidation, unrealized losses compress equity, sending effective leverage sharply higher. As a result, the ADL system tends to prioritize counterparties who are both highly profitable and entered with higher leverage.

ADL Risk Indicator

To make the risk of being ADL’ed intuitive, trading platforms typically display an ADL risk indicator in the positions panel. This indicator often uses five levels (five lights): the more lights illuminated, the higher the position’s rank in the ADL queue and the greater the probability of auto-deleveraging. When all five are lit, the position is at the highest risk tier.

ADL Execution Flow

Assume the market sells off sharply, triggering mass long-side liquidations and exhausting the Insurance Fund. The ADL system is then activated and proceeds as follows:

1. Identify counterparties. The system scans all traders holding short positions.

2. Compute rankings. Using the ADL ranking formula described above, it computes each short position’s ADL score and produces a priority queue (high → low).

3. Execute reductions. Starting from the top-ranked trader, the system forcibly reduces positions. If the shortfall corresponds to 100 BTC, and the top-ranked trader holds a profitable 20 BTC short, the system will force-close 20 BTC from that trader.

4. Price & fees. The reduced positions are settled at the bankruptcy price of the defaulting long that triggered the ADL event. No trading fee is charged to the trader subjected to ADL.

5. Iterate until covered. If the first reduction is insufficient (e.g., 80 BTC of deficit remains), the system continues with the second, third, … traders in order until all shortfalls are fully covered.

If this still feels abstract, consider the following example:

This example makes the core logic of ADL ranking explicit. Although Trader C has the highest PnL% (500%), the lower Effective Leverage (5×) yields an ADL score of 2500, which is below Trader A (250% × 15× = 3,750) and Trader B (150% × 20× = 3,000). This illustrates that ADL preferentially selects traders who have earned outsized profits with high leverage to bear loss absorption first.

Example of the ADL Counterparty Ranking Queue

How to reduce ADL risk

1. Lower the leverage multiple. The most direct lever. Reducing leverage decreases Effective Leverage in the ranking formula and thus lowers the ADL score.

2. Take partial profits (partial close-outs). Realizing part of a strongly profitable position reduces PnL%, which likewise lowers the ADL score and shrinks overall exposure.

3. Monitor the ADL indicator closely. During high volatility, watch your position’s ADL risk indicator. If the level rises, promptly de-lever and/or take partial profits.

Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish