Andrew Tate Crypto Losses On Hyperliquid Highlight Leverage, Rapid Liquidations, And On-Chain Traces Amid A Bitcoin Drop For InvestorsAndrew Tate Crypto Losses On Hyperliquid Highlight Leverage, Rapid Liquidations, And On-Chain Traces Amid A Bitcoin Drop For Investors

Andrew Tate crypto trading on Hyperliquid ends in $727K wipeout

andrew tate crypto

The latest Andrew Tate crypto saga ended in a brutal loss, with the influencer watching a high‑risk derivatives bet implode on Hyperliquid after a sharp market downturn.

How did Andrew Tate lose $727,000 on Hyperliquid?

On Tuesday, 38‑year‑old former kickboxer and social media personality Andrew Tate lost nearly three‑quarters of a million dollars after a sudden crypto sell‑off dragged Bitcoin below the $95,000 mark for the first time since May. He had deposited exactly $727,000 on decentralized perpetual exchange Hyperliquid, according to on‑chain data.

Blockchain analysis by Arkham Intelligence on Tate’s address showed his balance collapsing in real time. He never managed a single successful withdrawal from the platform, as his positions were opened with aggressive leverage and then liquidated during the slump.

Arkham’s thread, titled “ANDREW TATE: HYPERLIQUIDATED,” noted that Tate sent a total of $727K to Hyperliquid and “as of today, has lost it all – without making a single withdrawal.” The report also highlighted how he attempted to offset losses using referral rewards from his link.

The market downturn wiped out referral earnings as well. Tate had claimed a total of $75,000 in referral rewards, which he then plowed back into the same account. However, those funds were also trapped in losing highly leveraged trades until they were fully liquidated.

What do Tate’s trading records on Hyperliquid reveal?

According to trading records shared on X by user StarPlatinum, Tate’s most damaging bet came in June, when he opened a leveraged long on Ethereum with 25× exposure. That single position ended in a staggering $597,000 loss, effectively erasing most of his deposited capital in one move.

He reportedly tried to conceal the scale of his losses, assuming on‑chain data would remain obscure. However, because Hyperliquid is a DEX, observers traced his wallet and found it sitting roughly $600,000 in the red, exposing the full extent of his losing streak.

In September, Cryptopolitan reported that Tate opened a long position on WLFI just before the token’s unlock, a move that backfired and cost him $67,500. An attempt to reopen the trade only minutes later led to additional losses, and he then went quiet for several weeks.

He did log one successful trade in August: a small short on YZY that produced a modest $16,000 profit. However, this win was fleeting, as fresh high‑risk entries quickly erased the gain. On November 14, a Bitcoin long with 40× leverage wiped out another $235,000, leaving the influencer with just $983 on the account.

Over several months, Tate executed more than 80 trades on Hyperliquid, yet his win rate was only 35.5%. His total profit and loss (PnL) during that time amounted to a net loss of $699,000, with more than 65% of his crypto net worth in tokens he had publicly promoted effectively burned.

What does blockchain analysis show about his wallets?

On‑chain tracking also sheds light on Tate’s broader holdings beyond his Hyperliquid account. His main Ethereum wallet currently holds about $65,000, largely in ETH and various low‑cap tokens acquired through swaps rather than disciplined accumulation.

In addition, his wallet on the Solana blockchain controls over $140,000, much of it concentrated in speculative memecoins. However, the performance of these coins over the last month has sharply deteriorated, compounding his derivatives‑driven losses.

The DADDY token alone accounts for $91,000 of this Solana portfolio, while the TOPG token represents around $5,000. The remaining assets are scattered across small positions that have dropped between 70% and 90% in value in the last 30 days, underscoring the volatility of his allocation.

Why is the community mocking Andrew Tate’s trading?

Across social media, especially on what many still call Crypto Twitter, users have seized on Tate’s results as a cautionary tale. Many have labeled him “one of the worst traders in crypto” and joked that he is “the only cobra that bites itself,” a jab at his self‑styled “Cobratate” persona.

One market watcher remarked that, based on this public track record, he might be among the weakest performers in the space, yet people still pay him for financial guidance. These comments have intensified scrutiny of his so‑called business and investing advice.

On‑chain analytics account Lookonchain shared a ranking of the most‑liquidated traders on Hyperliquid since November 1. Tate ranked third with 19 liquidations, behind Jeffrey “Machi Big Brother” Huang with 71 liquidations and James Wynn with 26.

Wynn quote‑posted the ranking to taunt the American‑British former kickboxer, writing: “Hahahahhahahaa I beat you Cobratate you’re a fucking loser. 26‑19, numbers speak for themselves. Try harder, be more reckless G.” The public rivalry further amplified discussion of his reckless positions and liquidation mechanics on perpetual DEXs.

What does this mean for Andrew Tate and crypto trading risk?

Tate has spent years promoting digital assets in his broader narrative about financial independence, packaging his views into social media content and so‑called business courses. However, his recent on‑chain record shows that extreme leverage, coupled with speculative memecoin exposure, can evaporate even large balances rapidly.

For observers asking does Andrew Tate invest in crypto, the answer is clearly yes, but his Hyperliquid history illustrates how aggressive risk‑taking and poor timing can overshadow even sizeable deposits. In the end, his experience serves as a high‑profile reminder of how unforgiving volatile markets can be when combined with excessive leverage.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
Gold Hits $3,700 as Sprott’s Wong Says Dollar’s Store-of-Value Crown May Slip

Gold Hits $3,700 as Sprott’s Wong Says Dollar’s Store-of-Value Crown May Slip

The post Gold Hits $3,700 as Sprott’s Wong Says Dollar’s Store-of-Value Crown May Slip appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Gold is strutting its way into record territory, smashing through $3,700 an ounce Wednesday morning, as Sprott Asset Management strategist Paul Wong says the yellow metal may finally snatch the dollar’s most coveted role: store of value. Wong Warns: Fiscal Dominance Puts U.S. Dollar on Notice, Gold on Top Gold prices eased slightly to $3,678.9 […] Source: https://news.bitcoin.com/gold-hits-3700-as-sprotts-wong-says-dollars-store-of-value-crown-may-slip/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:33
DeFi Leaders Raise Alarm Over Market Structure Bill’s Shaky Future

DeFi Leaders Raise Alarm Over Market Structure Bill’s Shaky Future

US Senate Postpones Markup of Digital Asset Market Clarity Act Amid Industry Concerns The proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) in the U.S. Senate
Share
Crypto Breaking News2026/01/17 06:20