Over the past year, Andrew Tate deposited $727,000 on the Hyperliquid platform, didn’t withdraw a cent, and ended up losing everything due to a series of leveraged trading liquidations. On November 18, the account was fully liquidated.
According to Arkham data, even about $75,000 in referral bonuses that Tate received for attracting traders were put back into play, lost in positions, and liquidated.
This story is a classic example of how high leverage, a low win rate, and stubbornly doubling down on losses can turn a six-figure deposit into a public spectacle.
Tate’s activity on Hyperliquid lasted almost a year. The first recorded cascade of liquidations occurred on December 19, 2024.
On that day, long positions in BTC, ETH, SOL, LINK, HYPE, and PENGU were all closed at a loss simultaneously — this is evident from Arkham‘s trade analysis.
The pattern he traded with all year was already apparent: wild leverage, directional bets, no risk control, and constant re-entry into losing trades, but with even larger size.
June’s ETH bet and the yearly tally
The loudest crash happened on June 10, when Tate posted on social media about a long on ETH with 25x leverage, entry around $2,515.90. He boasted about the position size and his confidence in the trade.
A few hours later, the position was liquidated. The post disappeared.
The very next day, Lookonchain published a dashboard linking the Hyperliquid address to Tate. The chart showed: 76 trades, win rate 35.53%, and a total loss of about $583,000.
With that win rate, Tate needed his profitable trades to more than cover his losses. That didn’t happen.
Due to Hyperliquid‘s transparency, all account activity was public. Anyone could see entries, leverage, margin calls, and liquidations. Tate’s habit of posting trades before they closed made his failures even more public.
How it all ended
In September, Tate’s long on WLFI was liquidated with a loss of about $67,500.
Reportedly, he tried to re-enter the same trade at the same levels. This cycle repeated until the last weeks of the account’s existence.
By November, the remaining capital was visibly melting away. On November 14, with 40x leverage, his long on BTC was liquidated for almost $235,000. Four days later, the account was completely wiped out.
The final moment came on November 18 around 7:15 PM Eastern Time. The last long position on bitcoin was liquidated, near the $90,000 mark.
According to Arkham‘s analysis, over the entire cycle, Tate deposited $727,000, withdrew nothing, and lost everything, including the $75,000 earned from referrals.
Referral didn’t save him
The referral program is also worth noting. Tate brought enough traders to Hyperliquid to earn a significant cashback, which he also lost in the same leveraged trades that had already cost him hundreds of thousands.
He failed not just in capital management, but never realized that his strategy didn’t work.
From November 1 to 19, Tate recorded 19 liquidations. According to Lookonchain, in November he ranked among the top traders by number of forced closures, second only to Machi Big Brother and James Wynn.
The final list included positions in BTC, ETH, SOL, and a bunch of small tokens. All trades were leveraged from 10x to 40x.
The higher the leverage, the smaller the move needed for a margin call. And in November’s volatility, such calls triggered instantly.
What leverage and a weak win rate do to a deposit
The mechanics of Tate’s collapse are simple: high leverage amplifies both profits and losses, and with a win rate below 40% you lose more often than you win.
When trading futures with 40x leverage, a move against your position of just 2.5% leads to liquidation. For Tate, these levels were the norm. Even a slight pullback closed his trades at a loss.
When, after liquidation, he re-entered the same position with the same leverage, he was essentially restarting a failed trade, but with a smaller deposit and the same risks. This approach inevitably leads to zero.
Also read: Core Foundation achieves ban on competitor Maple Finance’s bitcoin product
$75,000 earned from referrals only made things worse. The Hyperliquid program pays a percentage of trading fees generated by traders you refer.
Tate earned this money either through his own volume or from subscribers who joined via his link. But instead of withdrawing these funds or reducing risk, he put them into the same leveraged trades that had already been liquidated multiple times.
Such a decision speaks either to belief in a ‘next rebound’ or a complete lack of understanding of how quickly leverage eats up a deposit if the win rate stays low.
Why all this was public
Tate himself turned his personal trading into a public spectacle. He published trades before they closed, and every entry became public knowledge.
Usually, traders who burn out on leverage do so quietly: liquidations go into the exchange’s general statistics, but aren’t tied to a name or story.
Tate, however, posted entry points, marked positions, and periodically deleted posts after liquidations. This only increased interest and drew attention from on-chain analysts.
Also read: WLFI faces criticism after freezing wallets in project backed by the Trump family
Arkham, Lookonchain, and other platforms even created dedicated trackers for his account, knowing that every new liquidation would draw views and reactions.
Hyperliquid made tracking even easier. Unlike centralized exchanges where everything is hidden, here calculations are on the blockchain and the entire trade history is available if you know the address.
When Lookonchain linked Tate’s public persona to a specific address, it all became a show.
Who ended up in profit
The main question raised by Tate’s story: who are platforms with 50x leverage really built for? Do they help traders, or just squeeze money from those who overestimate their abilities?
On Hyperliquid you can use up to 50x leverage on some pairs. Liquidations happen automatically as soon as collateral drops below a critical level.
For experienced players with strict risk management, this can be an effective trading tool. But for traders with a low win rate and a habit of averaging down, it’s just a meat grinder.
Also read: US prepares to publish Nonfarm Payrolls data: market awaits labor market signal
$727,000 that Tate lost won’t change the exchange’s policy. But it’s a telling story of what happens when high leverage meets poor results and a stubborn desire to ‘win it back’.
The exchange earned commission from every trade, every re-entry, every liquidation. And the $75,000 paid to Tate for referred volume was returned the same way, through liquidations.
From a business perspective, the system worked perfectly.
No moral — just numbers
For retail traders, the main takeaway isn’t Tate’s mistakes, but the mechanics of leveraged trading itself.
With a win rate of 35% you can survive if you manage risk properly. But 25x leverage and constant re-entries after losses — that’s a path to zero.
On-chain transparency makes such stories public: some learn, some just watch as a show.
Tate’s account was wiped out. Hyperliquid keeps operating as if nothing happened.
$727,000 are gone, along with $75,000 in referrals. All of this is recorded on-chain.
This is an example of how quickly leverage can burn through a deposit if you don’t exit the market in time.
