Did Binance cause bitcoin crash? The debate has raged since the Oct. 10 “10/10” liquidation wave erased about $19 billion in positions. Liquidity remains thin, spreads are wide, and order books look fragile. Binance denies any internal glitch, while critics point to poor disclosure. The deeper story is leverage, market depth, and missing transparency. On Oct. 10, bitcoin plunged as much as 12.5% in hours, with forced liquidations rolling across major crypto venues. Prices tagged the high $78,000s intraday, and the event became the largest single-day wipeout by dollar value in crypto history. Since then, liquidity has not healed. Order books remain shallow, spreads are wider, and bitcoin’s slide from roughly $124,800 to near $80,000 has tested confidence. Many traders keep asking a simple question with a hard answer: Did Binance cause bitcoin crash, or did a fragile market do this to itself?

Did Binance cause bitcoin crash? What we know and what we don’t

What happened on 10/10

Leverage was high across the market. When prices fell, margin calls and auto-deleveraging hit in waves. Liquidations triggered more sell pressure, which triggered more liquidations. This feedback loop struck multiple exchanges at once. Binance, the largest exchange by volume and a giant in derivatives, was the most visible stage for the drama. That scale made it the natural target for blame. But visibility is not the same as causation.

Why Binance is in the spotlight

Cathie Wood said a “Binance software glitch” sparked about $28 billion in deleveraging. Binance pushed back. Co-founder He Yi argued that Binance does not serve U.S. persons in response to the TV claim, and the post later disappeared. Former CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao called the idea that Binance caused the crash “far-fetched.” The company said market factors drove the event: macro pressure, high leverage, thin liquidity, and congestion on Ethereum. Binance also said its core systems ran normally and it paid about $283 million to users affected in certain assets. Competitors used the moment to criticize or to pitch alternatives. One rival founder said 10/10 caused “real and lasting damage,” which many read as a jab at Binance. A rising decentralized venue touted gains in derivatives volume and depth. Reputation is also a market, and 10/10 reshaped that market.

The liquidity hole that still hurts

Months later, depth has not returned to pre-crash levels. Market makers have rebuilt slowly and selectively. Spreads are wider. Slippage bites quicker. That matters because thin books amplify moves. A medium sell can become a big drop when bids are scarce, and liquidation bands sit closer to market price. Key facts that shape the debate:

About $19 billion in positions were liquidated in a single day.

Bitcoin fell as much as 12.5% during the cascade and later drifted from ~$124,800 toward ~$80,000.

Depth across major pairs remains patchy, and spreads are wider than before 10/10.

Confidence is tentative, so makers step back faster when volatility spikes.

What market makers and traders say

Wintermute’s CEO Evgeny Gaevoy said the event was not a “software glitch.” He called it a flash crash in a super-leveraged market on an illiquid Friday night, fueled by macro headlines. He warned against hunting for a single villain. Other traders voiced anger at the scale of losses and at the idea that hundreds of millions in compensation could address billions in liquidations. A well-known account accused a major exchange of selling altcoins post-10/10, feeding theories of an overhang. Without data, those theories spread because people want an answer for a painful event.

The transparency gap keeps the fire burning

Traditional markets perform public post-mortems after shocks. Crypto rarely does. Former CFTC official Salman Banaei said 10/10 deserves a formal review similar to the 2010 “flash crash” study. He did not allege manipulation; he noted that investigations themselves deter bad behavior and help the market learn. This is the core problem. Without a shared timeline, shared data, and a shared conclusion, the narrative becomes a tug-of-war between claims. That keeps the question alive: Did Binance cause bitcoin crash, or did structure and leverage set the stage?

Cause versus catalyst

You can split the question into two parts:

Source: the root conditions that made a crash likely (high leverage, thin depth, crowded positioning, overreliance on derivatives).

Catalyst: the spark that started the cascade (macro news, big order, cross-venue liquidations, or a failure somewhere).

Right now, there is no public evidence that proves an internal Binance failure as the source. Binance’s scale ensured the crash was very visible on its books, but visibility is not proof of causation. Meanwhile, the source conditions were obvious: leverage-heavy trading, conditional market making, and liquidity that disappears under stress. When those three combine, almost any spark can create a cascade.

How the market can fix the depth problem

More light, fewer rumors

Cross-venue post-mortems that publish time-stamped liquidation and order-book data.

Independent audits of depth and slippage during stress windows.

Clear communication when risk engines throttle, halt, or reprice collateral.

Better risk plumbing

Dynamic margin that rises when volatility and correlations jump.

Smarter circuit breakers that slow cascades without freezing price discovery.

Shared risk indicators across major venues: open interest heat maps, liquidation bands, and real-time funding stress.

Proofs that matter

Proof-of-reserves is common. Add “proof-of-liquidity” snapshots that quantify executable depth by venue and pair.

Regular stress tests that simulate cross-exchange liquidations and publish results.

What traders can do now

Trade size, not ego

Cut leverage. Size positions to survive larger wicks.

Favor limit orders in thin books to control slippage.

Watch risk signals

Track open interest, funding rates, and basis. Elevated readings plus thin depth signal danger.

Watch spreads and order book gaps before big macro prints and late on Fridays.

Diversify execution and custody

Split orders across venues and time. Avoid dumping full size into a dry book.

Keep collateral quality high. Manage stablecoin and network congestion risk.

Plan for stress before it arrives

Predefine exit plans. Program alerts at liquidation bands.

Use hedges (options or inverse exposure) to cap tail risk.

The bottom line

People want a clean answer to a messy question: Did Binance cause bitcoin crash. Based on what is public, the fairest read is this: Binance was the largest stage, but the script was written by leverage and thin depth. The market has not rebuilt its buffers. That is why rumors still fly, and why prices still slide faster than many expect. If the industry wants this question to go away, it must reduce leverage, restore depth, and publish clear post-mortems after shocks. Regulators can help by demanding data and doing formal reviews. Exchanges can help by sharing more about risk engines and halts. Traders can help by managing exposure with humility. Until those steps add up, the honest answer to Did Binance cause bitcoin crash is “there is no proof it did,” while the structural culprit—fragile liquidity—remains in full view.

(Source: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/02/01/crypto-s-usd19-billion-10-10-nightmare-why-everyone-is-blaming-binance-for-the-bitcoin-crash-that-won-t-end)

For more news: Click Here

FAQ