Liquidation maps › AERO

AERO liquidation map

AERO trades at $0.81134 against $32.49M of open interest on Hyperliquid. The heaviest modelled cluster still standing sits 15.37% above it, at $0.93605, holding $127K — the level where shorts get closed. Over 7 days price traded $0.63970–$0.93266 and cleared $16.6M of modelled notional on the way.

Not investment advice — modelled figures from stated assumptions. Terms and disclaimer

Modelled notional standing at a price, at a moment. Colour tops out at the busiest 0.5% of the cells that carry anything so one dominant cluster cannot drag everything else to the floor; the most crowded spot holds $978K. A band ends where price trades through it — drawn in white, both as scars on the field and as the strip beneath — or fades out in four steps as the positions behind it age past the 14-day position life. Hover any point for the value band it sits in.

Hourly candles to 09:00 UTC, refreshed every 2 hours and drawn here in 1-hour steps. The dashed line is the live mark, $0.81134, from the snapshot taken 1 min ago. Two different ages, so neither is allowed to stand for the other.

$16.6Mmodelled notional price traded through inside this window

66.83%of modelled notional sits outside the drawn price range

$0.63970 – $0.93266the range that actually traded in this window

This surface is a model, and the assumptions below drive it. No venue publishes the distribution of open positions by leverage and entry price, so nobody can observe this — not us, and not anyone shipping a similar picture. Where a contract's cap leaves the profiles room to differ, changing the leverage mix in the form below moves the bands — the honest version of being handed someone else's Model 1, 2 and 3. Not on AERO: its 3× cap leaves only the 2× rung of the profile ladder, so every profile puts all of its weight at 2× and draws this same picture. What is not modelled is the price path drawn over the field, and the claim the picture actually supports is a checkable one — that price traded through where the model puts levels. See it happen on 5 February 2026 →

The assumptions, in full

#	Assumption	Value used	Observed or assumed
1	Total notional modelled	Equal to Hyperliquid's open interest in AERO, $32.49M — one venue's book, not the market's	observed
2	When positions were opened	Spread over the bars of the window in proportion to each bar's traded volume as a share of its own trailing 14-day window, which is what stops a rising market from loading every cohort onto its latest bars	assumed
3	Leverage mix	Balanced, which makes no difference here: this contract's 3× cap leaves only the 2× rung of the profile ladder, so every profile puts all of its weight at 2×.	assumed
4	Direction	Half long, half short at every leverage	assumed
5	How long a position stays open	A bounded life of 14 days, decaying in four tranches. Removed earlier if price trades through its level.	assumed
6	Maintenance margin	16.667% at tier 1, from the published table	observed
7	Positions before the window opens	336 bars before the chart starts are modelled off-screen, so the first drawn column already holds a full position-life window of positions	assumed
8	Drawn price range	Fitted to the traded range, $0.63970–$0.93266, plus headroom. 66.83% of modelled notional liquidates further away than this and is not drawn.	observed

Row 8 is the one most worth reading twice. Tying the axis to what actually traded is what gives the price path presence — the previous version spanned a third of the price to accommodate 2× levels half a market away, and flattened real movement into a squiggle. A minimum of ±8% stops a very quiet window from zooming into noise, and in a quiet window it is that minimum rather than the traded range that sets the axis. Either way the cost is that low-leverage levels fall off the picture. Here that is 2×.

Leverage mix used: Balanced

The exact weight vector behind the picture, renormalised over the 1 rung this contract's 3× cap leaves in play. Under that cap it is every profile's vector, so switching profile redraws this same table and this same picture.

Leverage	Share of notional	Modelled notional	Long liquidation, % from mark
2×	100.00%	$32.49M	−40.0%

The bars that did the clearing

The dark corridor in the picture is not empty space, and it was not carved evenly. These are the 6 bars of this window in which the model says the most notional was traded through — 84.99% of everything cleared in 7 days, in 6 bars out of 168. The largest was 26 Sep 2026 02:00 UTC, a 1-hour bar that ranged $0.85382 to $0.90030. The bar and its range are traded candles; what it cleared is the model's, and the two are separated in the columns below for that reason.

Bar opened	Low	High	Move, open to close	Modelled notional cleared	Share of the window
26 Sep 2026 02:00 UTC	$0.85382	$0.90030	+4.96%	$5.7M	34.25%
25 Sep 2026 16:00 UTC	$0.79550	$0.84880	+5.98%	$3.2M	19.52%
25 Sep 2026 18:00 UTC	$0.85026	$0.86891	+0.15%	$1.9M	11.65%
26 Sep 2026 03:00 UTC	$0.88056	$0.90418	−1.64%	$1.2M	7.43%
26 Sep 2026 10:00 UTC	$0.89857	$0.92305	+0.69%	$1.1M	6.70%
25 Sep 2026 17:00 UTC	$0.83008	$0.85633	+0.70%	$903K	5.43%

A bar clears a level by trading through it, so the column on the right is bounded by what the model had standing there in the first place — a violent bar through a thin part of the field clears less than a quiet one through a crowded part. That is the reading the picture gives at a glance and this table gives in figures.

Where the model puts the biggest clusters

Price levels still carrying modelled notional at the right-hand edge of the chart, largest first — $329,174 across the 6 listed. These are the numbers the bright bands stand for.

Price	Distance from mark	Side closed	Modelled notional	Share of open interest
$0.93605	+15.37%	shorts	$127,210	0.39%
$0.94313	+16.24%	shorts	$60,959	0.19%
$0.93841	+15.66%	shorts	$50,024	0.15%
$0.93369	+15.08%	shorts	$44,317	0.14%
$0.94077	+15.95%	shorts	$33,172	0.10%
$0.94549	+16.53%	shorts	$13,493	0.04%

Where liquidation levels would sit if positions were opened the way the assumptions above describe — and, the part that matters, where price has already cleared them. The dark corridor the price path carves through the field is not empty space; it is the levels the market has already taken out. This is a model, and it is labelled as one inside the picture, not only underneath it. Every modelled figure here is scaled from Hyperliquid's open interest in AERO, which is one venue's book rather than the whole market's. What a liquidation heatmap actually shows →

On AERO the leverage mix changes nothing: its 3× cap leaves only the 2× rung of the profile ladder. It still applies if you switch coin.

How far price can move before each leverage liquidates — derived, not modelled

No assumptions here. Given the tier table and a mark these prices are arithmetic: the upper cap is where a short is closed, the lower cap where a long is closed.

Leverage	Initial margin	Long liquidation	Move down	Short liquidation	Move up	Corridor width
3× · max	33.33%	$0.64907	−20.00%	$0.92725	+14.29%	34.29%
2×	50.00%	$0.48680	−40.00%	$1.04315	+28.57%	68.57%

Where AERO's margin tiers step down

Maintenance margin is set by the tier the notional falls in.

Tier	Notional from	Max leverage	Maintenance margin
1 · charted	$0	3×	16.667%

What is deliberately absent

No liquidation totals and no cascade tracker. Those need an event feed, and every available one is throttled — Binance publishes at most one liquidation per symbol per second, so a sum over it understates by an unknown factor, worst exactly when the number is most quoted. The full reasoning →

Other coins

Every other covered contract, each linked with the Balanced leverage mix and the 7-day window set here. AERO is the one drawn above.

The 5 February sweep, on real candles → · Leverage survival — real candles, one stated rule → · AERO funding and margin tiers →

Liquidation maps by contract → · AERO funding and margin tiers → · What a liquidation heatmap actually shows →