A 4.9% hour inside a 14.36% losing week forces a margin schedule rewrite
Should the exchange risk team raise margin requirements for leveraged BTC clients now, or keep the current schedule and rely on liquidation at existing triggers through another week like this one?
The market facts are real; the decision maker is illustrative.
The week and the position
In the week of 3 March 2025, BTC fell 14.36%, from 94,269.99 to 80,734.37, with an 8.54% fall on Monday and a -4.9% hour starting 00:00 UTC on Friday. Realised annualised volatility reached 92.6%, the range was 18.02%, and the close sat in the lower third. Volume was 1.25 times the prior 12-week average, and three of the four previous weeks were down. The week ranked in the 4.0th percentile of 368 weeks. ETH fell 5.41 percentage points more than BTC, with close correlation of 0.87.
Judgment
A liquidation engine protects the exchange only if collateral can be sold near the trigger. A 4.9% hour, in a week with 92.6% annualised volatility, can carry accounts through their triggers and the cushion behind them. Raise the minimum margin for BTC, calibrated to the worst hourly and daily moves rather than the weekly average, and set it higher for ETH, which fell further in the same direction. Keep existing accounts on their current terms and apply the new schedule to new positions and to top-ups.
What would change it
If the exchange's own liquidation records show this week's accounts were closed close to their trigger prices with little bad debt, the case for a raise weakens. If hourly moves of this size stop for several scheduled weeks, the new margins can be reviewed downward.
What sets this case apart
This is a margin-schedule decision on the seller side of the trade, judged by how fast collateral devalues within one hour, not by the size of the weekly loss.