where the liquidation price actually sits

At a maintenance rate of 0.00% the room at 100× is exactly 1.00%, and at 1.25% it is 1.25% at a 40× cap against 2.50%.

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 derivation, in four steps

Write L for leverage, N for notional and m for the adverse price move as a fraction. Step one: initial margin is N ÷ L, so a $100.00 stake at 20× controls $2,000.00 and posts one part in 20 of it. Step two: an adverse move of m costs N × m, which is the same currency as the margin, so equity falls one for one with the move on notional.

Step three: liquidation triggers when equity falls to the maintenance requirement, which is a rate r applied to notional. Setting N ÷ L − N × m = N × r and dividing through by N leaves m = 1 ÷ L − r. Step four: the notional cancels, so the answer holds for any stake size, and the whole rule is the reciprocal of leverage less the maintenance rate.

That is exactly what venues.liq_move() computes, and offer.liq_move() is the same expression with the maintenance rate pinned at 0.00%. At 100× it returns 0.0100 as a fraction, which is 1.00%. Any page stating a smaller figure at that rung has subtracted a buffer that the venue does not hold.

a maintenance rate of zero returns the whole reciprocal

Moon documents no maintenance margin. A bet is closed once it has lost an amount equal to the wager, and exposure is the wager multiplied by the multiplier, so a move of 1 over the multiplier exhausts the wager exactly. The room is therefore 10.0% at 10×, 2.00% at 50×, 1.00% at 100× and 0.10% at 1000×, with no rung losing anything to a buffer.

Moon on how leverage works, placing a first bet for the loss cap.

half the initial margin at the cap removes half the room at the cap

Hyperliquid sets maintenance margin at half the initial margin required at the asset's maximum leverage, so the rate is fixed per asset rather than per rung. At a 40× cap the initial margin is 2.50% and half of it is 1.25%. Subtracting a constant from a shrinking reciprocal bites hardest at the top of the ladder: at the cap the room is 1.25% against 2.50%, a ratio of 0.50, while at 2× the same subtraction leaves 0.975 of the room.

Hyperliquid liquidations, maintenance margin and the liquidation price formula.

room at every rung, both maintenance rates

Room is 1 over the rung less the maintenance rate, computed by venues.liq_move(). The second column uses a maintenance rate of 0.00%; the third uses 1.25%, the rate for a 40×-capped asset. Rungs above 40× exist on one venue only, which is why the third column stops.

the maintenance rate rises as the asset cap falls

One asset per distinct cap in the coverage record. The maintenance rate is half the initial margin at that cap, so a 5×-capped asset carries 10.0% and loses half its room at the cap in the same way. The second and third columns match at every cap by construction: subtracting half the initial margin from the initial margin leaves the other half, so the room at the cap equals the maintenance rate. Caps and tiers: Hyperliquid margin tiers.

the live readout reproduces the rule to 1.000 of it

The registry records one observation from the live product, and this page re-derives it rather than repeating it. A position of 50× in the Down direction on Tesla, entered at $346.145, displayed a liquidation price of $353.068. The implied distance is $6.923 over $346.145, which is 2.0000%.

The model says the distance at 50× is 1 over 50, or 2.00%. Dividing the implied distance by the model gives 1.000, so the displayed price sits one part in the leverage from entry with nothing subtracted for a maintenance buffer. Observed 2026-08-27.

Indicative example based on third-party market data. Moon's reference price, spread, fees, settlement and liquidation rules may produce a different result.

the distance only means something against a distribution

The reciprocal is arithmetic; whether it is enough is measurement. On Bitcoin the 95th-percentile adverse excursion over a session was 1.55% across 511 rolling windows, which sits between the room at 20× and the room at 50× on a zero-buffer venue. The same excursion exceeds the room at the 40× cap on the maintenance-rate venue by a factor of 1.2 when the position is held that long.

the measured excursion and survivable rung for each of the 45 markets, what the opening fee costs against that room.

what this page replaced

Three earlier guides on this site applied a maintenance rate of 0.05% to Moon, which produced a liquidation distance of 0.95% at 100×. Both figures were retracted in August 2026: the documented maintenance rate is 0.00%, so the distance at 100× is 1.00% and the retracted figure understated the room by 0.05 percentage points at every rung. That is 5% of the room at 100× and 50% of it at 1000×, so the error grew with the rung it was most likely to be read at.

The correction is logged on the corrections page. Registry 2026-08-27a, reviewed through 2026-11-27.