The October 11 crash that wiped billions from the crypto market may not have been an accident. It appeared to be a planned strike aimed straight at Binance and one of its biggest market makers, according to analysis from Colin Wu. The weak spot was Binance’s Unified Account margin system, which let traders use certain volatile assets as collateral. That design flaw gave attackers a clear target, and they hit it hard. Instead of sticking to standard USDT or coin-margined positions, Binance allowed traders to post proof-of-stake derivatives and yield-bearing stablecoins as collateral. The three assets that took the worst hits were USDE, wBETH, and BnSOL. Their liquidation prices came from Binance’s own spot order book, not from assets with hard pegs. BUSD, however, stayed solid thanks to its fixed peg, and on-chain Aave oracle data for USDE still showed a clean 1:1 ratio, which meant the chaos came entirely from Binance’s internal pricing system. Collateral collapse triggers mass liquidations When Bitcoin and altcoins started tumbling, the damage multiplied. Coin-margined traders were already bleeding, and the sudden depegging of collateral killed their remaining margin value. USDE crashed to $0.65, wBETH plunged to $0.20, and BnSOL hit $0.13. Even hedged positions didn’t stand a chance. As margin balances evaporated, liquidations exploded across Binance futures. Traders got wiped out, and market makers were forced to close everything, dumping their holdings just to survive. The problem got worse because of Binance’s 12% yield program, which pushed large stablecoin holders to use Bn lending products for recursive USDE borrowing. That setup amplified exposure. When the crash came, it dragged those leveraged loops down with it. On-chain redemptions for USDE stayed fine, but prices on Binance plunged way below other exchanges, most stayed near $0.9, while Binance’s prices fell far deeper. Even altcoins on Binance hit abnormal lows, a sign of large-scale forced liquidations. The scale was massive. Within 24 hours, Binance recorded $3.5–4 billion in trading volume from USDE, wBETH, and BnSOL. Estimated losses ranged between $500 million and $1 billion. Covering that would mean Binance absorbing a billion-dollar hit. Analysts pointed to a clear failure in how margin collateral and liquidation pricing were structured, flaws that made the system easy to exploit. Timing exposes planning behind the attack What makes this look deliberate is timing. The attack happened right between Binance’s oracle price update announcement on October 6 and the actual rollout on October 14. That gave attackers eight full days to prepare. Binance’s risk team had noticed some exposure, but the delay created an open window, and the exploit slipped right through it. Experts warned that for PoS-based assets, oracles should keep a hard floor price, even with liquidity discounts. Relying only on spot prices inside an exchange, especially one where both counterparty and operational risks are internal, is asking for trouble. The question of whether USDE is truly backed 1:1 is still hanging. The Luna-UST collapse proved how bad things can get when pegs fail. Back then, Binance lost money defending UST near $0.7. If the exchange insists on keeping USDE as margin collateral, limiting how much can be pledged would make more sense than pretending everything is stable. Tom Lee, chairman of BitMine, told CNBC the market’s pullback was “overdue” after a 36% gain since April. He said the VIX jumped 29%, calling it one of the top 1% largest single-day volatility spikes in history. He called the sell-off “a healthy shakeout,” saying short-term returns could turn positive soon. Investor @mindaoyang on X compared this crash to LUNA’s implosion. He said the danger comes from exchanges using non-fiat stablecoins as high-value collateral, letting risk spread everywhere. He warned that mixing market-based pricing with high collateral ratios is the most dangerous setup, especially when centralized exchanges have poor arbitrage efficiency. He added that LSD-type assets, those yield-bearing tokens disguised as “stable,” face the same problem: they look calm on the surface but move like volatile crypto underneath. Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free .
