what the rest of the account is exposed to
A structural cap at the wager and a cap that depends on choosing isolated margin are different objects, and the backstop threshold sits at 0.83% of notional at a 40× cap.
Figures rebuilt 2026-08-27 by the MarketMoves editorial desk. Every number on this page is derived from the sources named in the methodology.
the largest single difference between the two models
Every other difference on this site is a matter of degree: a fee basis, a maintenance rate, a rung ceiling, a published or unpublished carry rate. The worst-case difference is a matter of kind. On one model the loss cap is a property of the instrument and applies whatever the account holds; on the other it is a property of a setting chosen before the position is opened, and the alternative setting exposes the account balance rather than the position.
Stated as arithmetic, the difference does not appear at all until the position fails. Up to that point both models behave identically: notional is stake multiplied by rung, room is 1 over the rung less the maintenance rate, and the fee is charged on one base or the other. The divergence is entirely in what the liquidation does to the account balance the position was not supposed to touch.
a cap at the wager is structural and needs no election
Moon states that a bet cannot take an account below zero and that a position closes once it has lost an amount equal to the wager. The registry records the loss cap as the wager with the note: Loss is capped at the wager. There is no margin-mode setting attached to it, so a $100.00 wager at 1000× risks $100.00 for the same reason a $100.00 wager at 2× risks $100.00, and the 0.00% maintenance rate means the whole 0.10% of room at the top rung belongs to the wager.
What the cap does not do is slow the loss down. At 1000× the distance to liquidation is 0.10%, which is smaller than the 95th-percentile one-minute excursion on every market in the sample, so the cap binds quickly and completely. The cap governs the size of the loss and the rung governs its speed.
placing a first bet for the cap, Moon on how leverage works for the distance.
isolated margin confines a loss, cross margin does not
Hyperliquid records its loss cap as isolated margin, with the note: Isolated margin confines loss to that position. Cross margin does not, and a backstop liquidation below two thirds of maintenance margin does not return the maintenance margin. Under isolated margin the collateral assigned to a position is the whole of what that position can lose, and a liquidation closes it without reaching the rest of the account. Under cross margin the account's margin backs every open position jointly, so a single position's liquidation is settled against shared collateral and the loss is not confined to the position that caused it.
The election has to be made before the position is opened, and it is the election rather than the venue that produces the confined outcome. That is the precise sense in which the two models differ in kind: one reader on the notional-basis venue can hold a position whose worst case is the assigned margin, and another can hold the same position with the same rung and the same notional and a worst case of the account, with nothing in the position itself to distinguish them.
Hyperliquid liquidations, margin modes and the maintenance margin requirement.
the backstop sits below two thirds of maintenance margin
Hyperliquid documents a backstop liquidation that engages when account value falls below two thirds of the maintenance margin requirement. At a 40× cap the maintenance rate is 1.25% of notional, so two thirds of it is 0.83% of notional, and on a $100.00 stake at that rung the threshold is $33.33 of account value. Below it the cross positions and the cross margin transfer to the liquidator, and the maintenance margin is not returned.
Two features of that mechanism matter for sizing. It is defined on account value rather than on the position, so a second position can push the account through the threshold while the first is still inside its own room. And the maintenance margin that would otherwise have been the buffer is consumed rather than refunded, which makes the effective worst case under cross margin larger than the maintenance requirement suggests when read as a stop.
strict isolated margin removes the top-up path
Isolated margin as normally offered still allows margin to be added to a position after it is opened, which moves the liquidation price away from entry and increases the amount at risk beyond the original assignment. Strict isolated margin fixes the assignment: no further collateral can be transferred in, so the liquidation price computed at entry is the liquidation price at liquidation and the worst case equals the initial margin exactly.
That makes strict isolated margin the closest analogue on the notional-basis venue to a structural cap at the wager, and the analogy is still not an identity. The wager cap arrives without an election and applies to every position on the venue; strict isolation arrives from a setting, applies to the position it was set on, and leaves the maintenance rate of 1.25% standing between the position and the full 2.50% of room the same rung would otherwise have.
Hyperliquid liquidations, isolated and cross margin behaviour.
the worst case, dimension by dimension
| Dimension | Wager basis, zero maintenance rate | Notional basis, maintenance rate at the cap |
|---|---|---|
| Loss cap object | wager | isolated margin |
| Election required | none, the cap is a property of the instrument | isolated margin must be chosen before entry |
| Worst case on a $100.00 stake at the venue's cap | $100.00 at 1000× | $100.00 at 40× if isolated, otherwise the cross account |
| Maintenance rate at that cap | 0.00% | 1.25% |
| Backstop threshold, two thirds of maintenance margin | No maintenance margin exists | 0.83% of notional |
| Liquidation fee | not published | 0.00% |
| Tracked markets listed | 50 | 18 |
Loss caps and notes are the registry's own fields, read through
venues.loss_cap(). The backstop threshold is two thirds of
venues.maintenance_rate() at the asset cap. Market counts are
venues.universe_counts() across the 50 tracked markets:
50 listed against 18, so the classes outside
crypto have one venue and no margin-mode choice at all.
reading this as a difference and not a ranking
A capped-loss instrument and a margin account with an election are answers to different questions. A reader sizing a short hold at a rung above 40× has one venue, a structural cap and a runway of 2.50% at the cap of the other. A reader holding self-custodied collateral across several positions has a published carry rate, a 1.25% maintenance buffer and a margin-mode decision to make before entry. Neither set of properties dominates the other, and the comparison that decides the position is between each set and the trade in hand.
where the room comes from, what carrying the position costs, the full dimension table.
Registry 2026-08-27a, reviewed through 2026-11-27. Rebuilt 2026-08-27 07:56 UTC UTC.