- Crypto crashed after $1.1 billion in liquidations, pushing Bitcoin near $60,000 and Ethereum below key levels.
- ETF outflows and falling open interest added pressure, leaving the market fragile.
The crypto market is facing one of its sharpest downturns in recent months after a wave of liquidations wiped out more than $1.1 billion in leveraged positions. The sell-off has dragged both Bitcoin and Ethereum to levels not seen in weeks, reshaping market structure almost overnight.
Bitcoin Slides Back Toward $60,000
Bitcoin has dropped sharply from above $80,000 just a few weeks ago to near $60,000. On June 5, it touched a low of $61,057, marking its weakest daily close since February.
The decline accelerated in the final days of May and early June as leveraged positions began to unwind. Once prices started falling, forced liquidations added more selling pressure, pushing the market lower in a fast-moving cycle.
Bitcoin’s structure now looks very different compared to mid-May, with reduced leverage and weaker speculative positioning across futures markets.
Ethereum Falls Harder and Loses Key Levels
Ethereum has performed even worse during the sell-off. The asset broke below $1,800 for the first time since May 2025 and is now struggling to hold the $1,700 level.
Ethereum is now down roughly 45% year-to-date, reflecting both market-wide weakness and reduced confidence in altcoin risk exposure.
The drop shows that Ethereum has been hit harder than Bitcoin during this correction, especially in derivatives markets where long positions were heavily concentrated.
Over $1.1 Billion Liquidated in 48 Hours
The most intense part of the sell-off came in a 48-hour window when more than $1.1 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated.
Most of the damage came from long traders who were betting on higher prices. As the market reversed, exchanges automatically closed these positions, creating additional selling pressure.
This kind of forced selling often accelerates declines because it removes liquidity and triggers further downside moves in a chain reaction.
Santiment Data Shows a Major Derivatives Reset
Data from Santiment shows that the liquidation event significantly reset the derivatives market.
- Bitcoin open interest fell about 25% to $23.2 billion
- Ethereum open interest dropped 13% to $9.8 billion
- Both hit their lowest levels in months
For Bitcoin, this is the weakest open interest reading since early April. For Ethereum, it is the lowest since March.
This matters because high open interest often signals overcrowded trades. When too many traders are positioned in the same direction, even a small price move can trigger cascading liquidations. The recent flush reduced that risk.
Open Interest Collapse Shows How Fast Leverage Disappeared
The speed of the decline is what stands out. Bitcoin open interest dropped from roughly $31 billion to $23.2 billion in just four days. Ethereum followed a similar pattern, falling from about $11.3 billion to $9.8 billion in the same period.
Data also suggests that 85% to 90% of liquidated positions were longs, meaning most traders were betting on the continuation of the uptrend before the crash.
This imbalance helped intensify the downside move once prices broke key support levels.
ETF Outflows Add Institutional Pressure
Pressure has also come from the institutional side. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs have now recorded 13 straight days of net outflows.
Key developments include:
- Around $4.4 billion in total outflows since mid-May
- Roughly 59,000 BTC removed from ETF holdings
- A single-day outflow of about $396.6 million
- Heavy selling led by iShares Bitcoin Trust
Other funds, such as Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust also saw steady redemptions.
Total ETF assets under management have dropped significantly, reversing part of the inflows that previously helped drive Bitcoin’s rally earlier this year.
Ethereum Debate Adds to Market Uncertainty
Ethereum’s weakness has also been amplified by ongoing debate around its long-term value. Within the crypto community, including voices from Bankless, there has been disagreement over whether ETH should be viewed as a store-of-value asset or purely as a utility token tied to network usage.
One of the co-founders even sold his ETH holdings earlier in 2026, which drew attention given the timing just before the market downturn. This debate has added another layer of uncertainty to Ethereum’s already fragile price structure.
Key Levels to Watch
Despite the heavy selling pressure across the market, price action is now approaching key technical zones that traders are closely watching for signs of either stabilization or further breakdown.
For Bitcoin, the $60,000 level stands as the most important support area in the current structure. It has become a key psychological and technical zone following the recent liquidation-driven decline. If this level fails to hold, it could trigger another wave of selling pressure, with downside targets forming in the $52,000–$55,000 range where previous demand and valuation models begin to cluster.
For Ethereum, the market is sitting in a more vulnerable position. The $1,700 level has emerged as immediate support after the sharp breakdown from higher ranges. A sustained move below this zone would weaken the short-term structure further and could expose the $1,500–$1,600 region, an area not seen since earlier phases of recovery.
These zones are now acting as the main battleground, where buyers are attempting to defend key levels while sellers test whether the recent liquidation flush has fully reset market positioning or if further downside still lies ahead.
Outlook: Market Reset or Deeper Downtrend?
Liquidation events like this often reset overheated markets by removing excessive leverage. The drop in open interest suggests the market is now less crowded and less vulnerable to immediate cascading liquidations.
However, recovery will depend on whether new demand returns. ETF flows, macro conditions, and sentiment will likely determine whether this is a reset phase or the start of a deeper correction.
DISCLAIMER:
The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. The publisher does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any information presented in this article. Readers are encouraged to conduct further research and consult additional sources before making any decisions based on the content provided.
About the Author
