Months after the October 10 liquidation cascade, crypto market depth has yet to fully recover, while debate continues over Binance’s role as Bitcoin’s sell-off persists.
Key points to know:
- Liquidity across major crypto markets remains thin and fragmented following the Oct. 10 crash. Wider bid-ask spreads and weakened order books are being cited as key factors behind Bitcoin’s decline from around $125,000.
- Binance has denied allegations that an internal malfunction triggered the crash. However, critics argue that the exchange’s limited transparency has contributed to growing distrust and fueled speculation and conspiracy theories.
- Market makers and industry leaders say the episode highlighted deeper structural vulnerabilities in crypto markets, particularly shallow liquidity and heavy dependence on leverage. Many stress that the issue extends beyond any single platform and may justify regulatory-style oversight of market structure.
At first glance, the $19 billion liquidity wipeout on October 10 appeared to be a familiar event: a rapid cascade of liquidations across major crypto exchanges as Bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, plunged sharply.
What followed—and the continued lack of transparency surrounding the day’s events—has made the episode far more consequential. The sell-off became the largest single-day liquidation by dollar value in crypto history, leaving traders frustrated and fundamentally reshaping how crypto markets are viewed. At the center of the controversy is one name: Binance.

For many market participants, the world’s largest crypto exchange has become the symbol of the crash, which saw Bitcoin drop by as much as 12.5%, its steepest decline in 14 months. The move triggered widespread forced closures of leveraged positions as margin levels were breached across exchanges.
Whether due to Binance’s sheer size, its dominance in derivatives trading, or the limited clarity around what exactly transpired, the exchange has faced persistent accusations on social media, with many claiming it played a central role in the Oct. 10 event—now widely referred to as “10/10.” Binance continues to deny responsibility, maintaining that the liquidations were not caused by an internal failure. The company did not respond to a request for comment from CoinDesk for this article.
In the absence of a clearly established narrative, it is unsurprising that traders remain unsettled.
In the months since the crash, market liquidity has remained noticeably impaired. Order books have not fully recovered, market depth remains uneven, and bid-ask spreads have widened. Many traders argue that this weakened market structure accelerated Bitcoin’s decline from around $124,800 to $80,000 and further eroded confidence across the market.
Adding to the debate, Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood has publicly weighed in, attributing Bitcoin’s continued weakness to what she described as a “Binance software glitch.”
Why Binance has re-emerged at the center of the debate
Wood said in a late-January appearance on Fox Business that the alleged glitch triggered approximately $28 billion in deleveraging.
In response, Binance co-founder He Yi pushed back online, emphasizing that Binance does not serve U.S. customers, though the post was later removed.
Rival platforms were quick to capitalize on the moment. Star Xu, founder of competing exchange OXK, said the October 10 event caused “real and lasting damage to the industry.” While he did not name Binance directly, the remarks were widely viewed as an implicit criticism of the exchange’s role in the episode.
At the same time, challengers such as the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid pointed to rising derivatives volumes and improving liquidity depth, positioning themselves as credible alternatives as Binance continues to grapple with reputational pressure.
Binance has reiterated that the October 10 event was not caused by an internal system failure.
Speaking during a Friday ask-me-anything session, co-founder and former CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao dismissed claims that Binance triggered the crash as “far-fetched.”
According to the company, the sell-off was driven by broader market forces, including macroeconomic pressures, excessive leverage, thin liquidity, and congestion on the Ethereum network. Binance said its core systems remained fully operational throughout the episode and that it paid approximately $283 million in compensation to affected users.
“A slap in the face”
For some market participants, Binance’s explanation has fallen short—particularly given the sheer scale of the liquidations. The $19 billion figure has taken on disproportionate symbolic significance, with Binance’s compensation payments often viewed less as meaningful restitution and more as a small fraction of the overall damage.
“This is a f***ing joke,” wrote the pseudonymous Bitcoin Realist on X. “You… liquidated $19 billion on 10/10 alone… This is like spitting in our faces.”
That frustration reflects more than outrage over a single bout of volatility. For many traders, October 10 has come to represent a deeper mistrust of crypto market structure itself.
Still, not everyone believes Binance should bear the blame.
“10/10 was very obviously not a ‘software glitch,’” wrote Evgeny Gaevoy, CEO of market maker Wintermute, on X. “It was a flash crash in a highly leveraged market during an illiquid Friday night, driven by macro news.”
He added: “Finding a scapegoat is comfortable, but pinning this on one exchange is intellectually dishonest.”
The underlying argument is straightforward: crypto markets remain heavily dependent on leverage, and liquidity is often conditional rather than continuous. During periods of stress, market makers widen spreads or withdraw altogether. In such thin conditions, liquidation cascades can quickly accelerate.
While Binance was the largest venue where the crash unfolded, it was not necessarily the origin of the shock itself.
A lack of transparency continues to fuel speculation
What remains absent is a formal public review and an authoritative account of what happened. Critics argue that without a thorough, transparent inquiry, speculation is free to grow unchecked.
Salman Banaei, a former regulator at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has suggested that the events of October 10 merit regulatory scrutiny, even without any allegation of wrongdoing.
“Whether you love or hate crypto, there should be a regulatory investigation into Oct. 10, 2025,” Banaei wrote, drawing a comparison to the May 6, 2010 stock market flash crash. “One benefit of regulation is that the mere possibility of such investigations acts as a deterrent to manipulation.”
He emphasized that he was not asserting manipulation took place, but rather highlighting a broader structural issue: crypto markets lack the formal post-event reviews that traditional financial markets routinely conduct after systemic disruptions.
Meanwhile, a trader known as Flood suggested that a major exchange had been steadily selling altcoins since 10/10, a claim that has fueled conspiracy theories around excess inventory.
Whether accurate or not, such narratives tend to gain traction when liquidity dries up and market confidence weakens.
The real problem lies in market depth, not a single exchange
October 10 may ultimately be remembered less for the scale of the liquidations and more for what it exposed about crypto market structure.
In bull markets, order books appear deep, leverage accumulates quietly, and liquidity feels plentiful. Bear markets reveal the opposite reality: liquidity evaporates, market makers pull back, volatility becomes concentrated, and the next shock breaks through far faster than expected.
Reflecting on the comparison with the FTX collapse in 2022, Mike Silagadze, CEO of Ether.fi, wrote on X that “this feels far worse than the post-FTX environment. In some ways, fundamentals are stronger than ever, yet price action has virtually no bids.”
Binance has become the most convenient scapegoat—not necessarily because it caused the crash, but because it is the largest and most visible exchange, making it an obvious target.
The more fundamental problem, however, is structural. Crypto market liquidity remains heavily reliant on leverage, conditional market making, and confidence—all of which have steadily eroded over the past four months.
As Eric Crown, a former options trader at NYSE Arca, put it:
“I don’t know if Binance deliberately played a role in wrecking the market in October. I’d lean toward the obvious explanation: excessive leverage, insufficient liquidity, and largely ineffective or unwanted altcoin ‘technologies’ created the conditions for a massacre—and that’s exactly what happened.”
“It was never a question of if, only when.”
Sources: Oliver Knight

















































