Bitcoin’s Leverage Is Under Pressure, but That Doesn’t Make a Bottom
Bitcoin’s November 15 selloff triggered heavy futures liquidations and a drop in open interest. That points to positions being reduced, not proof that buyers are back or that a market bottom is in. The available XRP figures are not verified well enough to support the same conclusion.
- CoinGlass recorded $695.02 million in Bitcoin futures liquidations over 24 hours.
- Longs accounted for about 91% of those liquidations.
- Bitcoin futures open interest fell, but that alone cannot confirm a leverage “flush” or market bottom.
- Reported Bitcoin ETF outflows add to the pressure. XRP-specific claims remain unverified.
Bitcoin’s decline forced out leveraged longs
CoinGlass reported Bitcoin at $63, 496 at 00:55 on November 15, 2026. Its snapshot showed a 7.04% decline over 24 hours and a 14.87% drop over seven days, with a reported 24-hour range of $63, 271 to $68, 375. The provider did not specify a timezone for the timestamp.
CoinGlass recorded $695.02 million in Bitcoin futures liquidations over the 24-hour period. Of that, $633.38 million came from long positions and $61.64 million from shorts. Longs made up about 91% of the reported Bitcoin liquidations.
A liquidation happens when a trading venue forcibly closes a leveraged position because the trader can no longer meet margin requirements. Here, falling prices hit traders who were betting on a rise. Forced closures can add to selling pressure, but they do not show whether sellers are done.
Falling open interest is not a bottom signal
CoinGlass put Bitcoin futures open interest at $43.43 billion, down 7.56% over 24 hours. Open interest is the outstanding value of derivatives contracts. Its decline alongside Bitcoin’s price drop is consistent with positions being closed, but it does not show exactly how much exposure was removed or whether those closures were forced.
There’s another wrinkle: this is dollar-denominated open interest. Its value can fall partly because Bitcoin’s price has fallen, even if the number of contracts changes less. The figures provided do not separate the effect of price changes from positions closing.
Open interest also does not tell us whether remaining traders are bullish or bearish. It measures outstanding derivatives exposure, not demand for Bitcoin on the spot market. Less leverage may leave fewer positions vulnerable to liquidation, but it does not bring in new buyers.
ETF outflows point to a demand headwind
Bitcoin’s spot and futures trading volumes also differed sharply in the CoinGlass snapshot. Reported 24-hour spot volume was $8.92 billion, compared with $99.96 billion in futures volume. These figures measure reported trading activity, not buying pressure or market depth. Their coverage and methodology may differ.
Fund flows offer a separate, imperfect view of demand. BigGo Finance, citing SoSoValue and Farside Investors, reported roughly $1.6 billion in net outflows from U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs since the start of November during the period it covered. Its daily figures include outflows through November 10.
CoinGlass separately reported $185.40 million in net outflows from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs on November 13. That covers a different period from BigGo Finance’s cumulative figure, so the two figures should not be added without reconciling their dates and methodology.
ETF outflows show net redemptions from those funds. They do not explain why investors sold or capture every source of demand across the market. Still, persistent outflows make it harder for buyers to absorb selling.
XRP’s leverage claims need better evidence
Claims that XRP fell below $1 after nine consecutive daily losses, that its open interest dropped toward $700 million, and that its funding rate reached -0.0036% could not be verified against the available data. Without a named exchange, contract, timestamp and source, those figures cannot reliably show whether XRP’s leverage has been flushed or whether a bottom is near.
Funding is a periodic payment between traders in perpetual futures. It helps keep a contract’s price aligned with the underlying asset. Under the usual convention, shorts pay longs when funding is negative, and longs pay shorts when it is positive. Conventions can vary by venue, and a negative rate alone does not forecast a rebound.
What would make a bottom more convincing?
Heavy liquidations can mark a period of forced selling, but they do not prove that the selling is over. A stronger signal would come from what happens next: do spot buyers absorb the supply, and does the price recover with strength?
A weak bounce followed by fresh lows would suggest that reduced open interest has not been enough to stabilize the market. The distinction matters. Liquidations can reduce leverage, but only demand can absorb the assets being sold.
Key questions about Bitcoin, XRP and leverage
-
Does falling Bitcoin open interest mean the market has bottomed?
No. It is consistent with positions being reduced, but it does not prove that spot demand has returned or that prices cannot fall further.
-
What do the Bitcoin liquidations show?
CoinGlass recorded $695.02 million in Bitcoin futures liquidations over the 24 hours covered by its November 15 snapshot. About 91% came from longs, based on the reported $633.38 million in long liquidations divided by the $695.02 million total.
-
Is negative XRP funding automatically bullish?
No. Under the usual convention, negative funding means shorts pay longs, but the cited XRP rate is unverified here. Funding is a positioning signal, not a standalone price forecast.
-
What would make a liquidation selloff look more like a bottom?
A strong recovery with meaningful spot buying would suggest buyers are absorbing forced sales. A weak bounce followed by new lows would weaken that case.
