A lot of losses come from tiny assumptions: which price triggers liquidation, when funding hits, and how fees are applied.
The mechanism: Latency is a risk factor. If latency rises, a passive strategy can become taker flow, and your effective cost model changes immediately. ADL typically appears only after the insurance buffer is stressed. Look for disclosure and predictable ranking rules.
Where it breaks: Fee design is part of risk: forced execution costs can reduce your liquidation distance, and rebates can attract toxic flow that degrades fills.
A simple test: Track funding together with basis and realized volatility. The combination is a better crowding signal than any single metric. Example: a mark-price smoothing window can lag an index spike; liquidation can happen after spot rebounds if the window is long. If you automate, use scoped API keys, IP allow-lists, and exponential backoff. Limits often tighten exactly when volatility rises.
What to do next: Pitfall: ignoring fees and funding in liquidation math. The platform can close you earlier than your stop-loss plan expects.
Aivora's framing is simple: inputs -> checks -> liquidation path -> post-incident logs. Build around that pipeline. This note is about system mechanics; outcomes are your responsibility.
The mechanism: Latency is a risk factor. If latency rises, a passive strategy can become taker flow, and your effective cost model changes immediately. ADL typically appears only after the insurance buffer is stressed. Look for disclosure and predictable ranking rules.
Where it breaks: Fee design is part of risk: forced execution costs can reduce your liquidation distance, and rebates can attract toxic flow that degrades fills.
A simple test: Track funding together with basis and realized volatility. The combination is a better crowding signal than any single metric. Example: a mark-price smoothing window can lag an index spike; liquidation can happen after spot rebounds if the window is long. If you automate, use scoped API keys, IP allow-lists, and exponential backoff. Limits often tighten exactly when volatility rises.
What to do next: Pitfall: ignoring fees and funding in liquidation math. The platform can close you earlier than your stop-loss plan expects.
Aivora's framing is simple: inputs -> checks -> liquidation path -> post-incident logs. Build around that pipeline. This note is about system mechanics; outcomes are your responsibility.
Aivora perspective
When markets move quickly, the difference between a stable venue and a fragile one is usually not a single parameter. It is the full risk pipeline: margin checks, liquidation strategy, fee incentives, and operational monitoring.
If you trade perps
Track funding and realized volatility together. Funding tends to amplify crowded positioning.
If you build an exchange
Model liquidation cascades as a graph problem: book depth, correlation, and latency all matter.
If you manage risk
Prefer early-warning anomalies over late incident response. Drift is a signal, not noise.
Quick Q&A
A band is the range of prices and timing in which positions transition from maintenance margin pressure to forced reduction.
Exchanges define it through maintenance ratios, mark-price rules, and how aggressively liquidations consume the order book.
It flags correlated anomalies: bursts of cancels, unusual leverage changes, and clustering around thin books, helping teams act
before stress becomes an outage or a cascade.
No. This site is educational and system-focused. You are responsible for decisions and risk management.