Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.15963

Risk-Based Auto-Deleveraging

Abstract

Auto-deleveraging (ADL) mechanisms are a critical yet understudied component of risk management on cryptocurrency futures exchanges. When available margin and other loss-absorbing resources are insufficient to cover losses following large price moves, exchanges reduce positions and socialize losses among solvent participants via rule-based ADL protocols. We formulate ADL as an optimization problem that minimizes the exchange's risk of loss arising from future equity shortfalls. In a single-asset, isolated-margin setting, the \emph{minimax leverage} policy -- minimizing the maximum leverage among participants -- is optimal for all monotone risk measures. This policy has a transparent structure: positions are reduced first for the most highly levered accounts, and leverage is progressively equalized via a water-filling (or ``leverage-draining'') rule. The policy is distribution-free, wash-trade resistant, Sybil resistant, and path-independent. It provides a canonical and implementable benchmark for ADL design and clarifies the economic logic underlying queue-based mechanisms used in practice. We further study the multi-asset, cross-margin setting, where the ADL problem becomes genuinely multi-dimensional: the exchange must allocate reductions across accounts with portfolios exposed to correlated price moves. Under the expected loss objective, asset-level shadow prices separate the problem across accounts, yielding a scalable numerical method. Naive gross leverage misleads here, ignoring within-portfolio hedging. When prices are driven by a single risk factor, the optimal policy is again water-filling, but in a factor-adjusted leverage, so better-hedged portfolios are deleveraged less. We apply the framework to the October~10, 2025 Hyperliquid ADL event. Relative to the exchange's realized allocation, our risk-minimizing allocations achieve lower expected shortfall.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Steven Campbell, Natascha Hey, Ciamac C. Moallemi, Marcel Nutz. 2026-07-16. Risk-Based Auto-Deleveraging. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15963

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Dynamic reinsurance via martingale transport

We formulate a dynamic reinsurance problem in which the insurer seeks to satisfy prescribed terminal moment or risk-based constraints while minimizing the $L^2$-norm of the ceded risk. As a tool for this analysis, we first use techniques from martingale optimal transport to study the auxiliary problem in which the insurer matches a given terminal distribution of the surplus process. We show that, under suitable assumptions, this auxiliary problem admits a tractable solution analogous to the Bass martingale. We then relax this condition by only requiring certain moment or risk-based constraints.

q-fin.RM

Risk Measures under Paired-Ambiguity: A Deep Learning Reflected BSDE Framework

We study optimal stopping under dynamic risk measures with simultaneous ambiguity in the probability model and the discount rate. We introduce a paired ambiguity framework combining Girsanov model uncertainty with cash subadditive risk evaluation and characterize the stopping value by an upper reflected backward stochastic differential equation (BSDE). We establish structural properties of the resulting stopping operator and study quadratic drivers associated with entropic risk measures, obtaining explicit stopping rules in several benchmark cases. We then develop a deep learning scheme for the reflected quadratic BSDE. The convergence analysis uses discrete reflection and truncation to reduce the quadratic problem to a globally Lipschitz system and combines reflected BSDE discretization estimates with neural network approximation errors. Numerical experiments for American options illustrate the effects of discount rate and entropic ambiguity on stopping values and exercise decisions.

q-fin.RM

When Is the Gini Loading More Prudent? Tail Structure and the Ordering of the Standard Deviation and the Gini Mean Difference

The standard deviation (SD) and the Gini mean difference (GMD) are the two canonical measures of variability used to load premiums, set risk margins and allocate capital, yet no universal ordering between them exists. We show that the comparison is \emph{equivalent} to asking whether the coefficient of variation of the spacing $|X-X'|$ generated by two independent copies of the risk exceeds unity, so that the exponential law -- whose spacing is again exponential -- is the universal knife-edge separating the two regimes. Reading the GMD as twice the maxiance, that is, as a second-order \emph{dual} moment in the sense of Yaari's dual theory, the problem becomes an explicit comparison of primal and dual second-order variability. We derive a closed-form representation of the mean excess function of the spacing in terms of the hazard and reverse hazard rates of $X$, and use it to prove that heavy-tailed behavior -- a decreasing hazard rate or an increasing reverse hazard rate -- yields SD dominance, whereas two-sided light tails yield GMD dominance; within the monotone aging classes, equality characterizes the exponential law. Both regimes are stable under truncation, convolution and mixing, which makes them operational in collective risk and frailty models. We classify the severity, lifetime and frequency distributions of actuarial practice accordingly, quantify the consequences for SD- and Gini-loaded premium principles and for Gini-type tail risk measures, and show that the sign of $\mathrm{SD}-\mathrm{GMD}$ across thresholds furnishes a simple diagnostic for tail aging.

q-fin.RM