The $75 Million Question

On August 23, 2024, Huang Licheng tried to open a 40x leveraged Bitcoin long position. Twice. Both attempts failed.

The second attempt was a $24.3 million position that would have been one of the more aggressive BTC trades of the week. Instead, it closed at a $165,000 loss before it ever gained traction. Within hours, Maji Fund had pivoted — moving aggressively into Ethereum with a $75 million long position at an entry price of $2,370, already showing $1.96 million in unrealized profit.

This isn't a story about a single fund's P&L. It's a story about what happens when conviction meets market structure — and how one of crypto's most recognizable high-leverage traders is navigating the post-halving landscape of 2024.

I've spent the last seven years watching traders build and destroy fortunes in this market. I've sat through the 2022 bear market when everything we believed in was stress-tested. And I've learned that the most revealing moments aren't the times when the market moves — they're when it doesn't move the way you expect.

The Anatomy of a Failed Conviction

Let's start with what actually happened.

Huang Licheng — a name familiar in crypto trading circles — leads Maji Fund. The fund attempted to open a 40x leveraged long position on Bitcoin on August 23, 2024. It failed. Twice.

This isn't the typical "got liquidated" story. The position didn't open and then get wiped out. The position failed to open at all. That distinction matters more than most retail traders realize.

Here's what a failed order at 40x leverage actually tells us:

Exchange risk controls. Most major exchanges — Binance, OKX, Bybit — have position size limits based on collateral and margin tier. At 40x leverage, the margin requirement is just 2.5% of the total position size. A $24.3 million position requires roughly $600,000 in collateral. If the exchange's risk engine flagged the order — either due to insufficient margin in the account, position limit constraints, or the exchange's own risk parameters — the order would be rejected.

Insufficient margin after fees and slippage. At 40x, even a 0.5% slippage equals a 20% loss on margin. Exchanges factor this in. The order might have been rejected because the projected slippage would have made the position exceed the available margin.

Deliberate rejection. Some funds place aggressive orders to test market conditions, with the intention of withdrawing them. The order may have been placed, evaluated, and pulled as part of a broader strategy evaluation.

The fact that both attempts failed suggests something systemic — not random. And this is where the story gets interesting.

Because what did Maji do after failing to enter Bitcoin?

They rotated into Ethereum — and they did so with force.

The Ethereum Pivot

Maji's Ethereum position now stands at $75 million — at an entry price of $2,370. The position is currently in profit by $1.96 million.

Let me put this in perspective. In the current market environment, a $75 million long position on Ethereum is not nothing. That's large enough to influence market sentiment in the short term, and certainly large enough to move the funding rate on ETH perpetual contracts.

In my years of analyzing on-chain behavior and market structure, this pattern — a high-leverage trader failing to enter one asset and immediately pivoting to another — tells me a few things:

1. The conviction is directional, not asset-specific. The trader wanted exposure to a crypto rally but was denied on BTC. The pivot to ETH suggests they see the broader market moving higher, and they're hunting for the best vehicle.

1. The market's rejection was specific to the BTC position. If the exchange rejected the order due to risk parameters, that's a different signal than a liquidity-based rejection. It could indicate that the market structure around BTC is stretched — there's enough open interest but the risk engines are tightening.

1. ETH is the path of least resistance. For a trader who can't get BTC position filled, Ethereum offers a similar beta with different liquidity dynamics.

But here's the part that interests me: $2,370 as an entry price matters. This isn't some random entry. Let me explain why.

In 2024, Ethereum has spent most of its trading range between $2,200 and $2,500. The $2,370 level is significant for multiple reasons:

• It's above the 50-day moving average
• It represents a psychological level where buyers have previously stepped in
• It's close to the breakeven point for many long-term holders who accumulated during the 2022 bear market

The $75 million position at this level creates what I call a "support feedback loop" — as long as the position stays open and profitable, it creates psychological support for the asset price. Other traders see large positions in profit and feel comfortable buying. This can create a self-reinforcing dynamic.

What the Portfolio Tells Us

But ETH is just one piece of the puzzle. Maji's portfolio reveals a multi-asset strategy:

• Ethereum long: $75 million (currently profitable by $1.96M)
• HYPE long: ~$19.85 million — likely related to Hyperliquid's ecosystem
• PUMP long: ~$4.87 million — likely related to Pump.fun ecosystem

Let me be honest about what we know and don't know.

The HYPE position is particularly interesting to me. HYPE is believed to be the token of Hyperliquid, the decentralized perpetuals exchange that's been gaining significant traction. If this is accurate, it means Maji is playing both sides of the market — holding long positions in a DEX's ecosystem while trading leveraged perpetuals.

This isn't just a trader hedging bets. It's a fund that's positioning itself within a specific narrative: the growing institutionalization of decentralized derivatives trading.

In my experience auditing DeFi protocols during DeFi Summer, I learned that the most sophisticated traders are those who understand the infrastructure layer. Hyperliquid has been one of the few platforms with real volume in the DEX derivatives space. A $19.85 million long position in its token shows conviction in this sector.

And the PUMP position — likely related to Solana's Pump.fun ecosystem — adds a meme coin component to the portfolio. It's a small position relative to the others, suggesting it's either a hedge or a speculative bet on the broader Solana ecosystem.

The Market Context That Matters

We're in August 2024. Bitcoin has already experienced its fourth halving in April. The market has been in a "digestion phase" — the typical post-halving consolidation that we've seen in every cycle. Historically, the months following the halving have been some of the most volatile and unpredictable periods in the crypto calendar.

What makes this cycle different is the institutional infrastructure that now exists around crypto:

• The Bitcoin ETF approval earlier in 2024 changed the market structure for BTC specifically
• The Ethereum ETF has been approved but has seen more moderate inflows
• Traditional financial institutions are watching the market more closely than ever before

In this environment, the behavior of a large trader like Maji becomes more meaningful than it might have been in 2021. When a well-known trader fails to open a 40x BTC position and then pivots $75 million into ETH, this isn't just noise. It's a signal — but not the kind of signal that most retail traders would immediately understand.

The signal isn't "ETH will go up because Maji bought it." The signal is: "a high-conviction trader is having difficulty expressing their bullish view on Bitcoin, and is looking for alternatives."

This could mean:

1. The BTC market is becoming structurally more difficult to trade at high leverage — likely due to increased institutional participation and more sophisticated risk management on exchanges.

1. The trader sees better risk/reward in Ethereum. If you're bearish on BTC/USD but bullish on ETH/BTC, you're more likely to express that view through ETH longs than BTC shorts.

1. There's a correlation trade being set up. If you believe the next leg of the market will be driven by DeFi and application layer, ETH is the logical choice.

The Contrarian Angle: When Leverage Fails, Attention Follows

Here's where I'm going to offer a perspective that most traders — and most analysts covering this story — will miss.

A failed 40x leverage attempt might be the most bullish signal for the market structure.

Think about this: exchanges don't reject orders without good reasons. The exchange's risk engine, in real-time, evaluates the position size, the market's liquidity, and the account's available margin. When it says "no" — twice — it's telling us that the market infrastructure itself is signaling that 40x leverage on BTC is too risky at this moment.

In my experience through the 2022 bear market and the recovery, this is actually what a functioning market should look like. The system has learned from the collapses — whether it's the 2021 leverage wipeouts or the 2022 contagion events. The risk controls are working.

But there's a second reading: the trader's behavior after the rejection reveals more about their risk appetite than their original trading attempt.

The speed of the pivot — from BTC to ETH — within hours, suggests a trader with conviction, not a panicking operator. The ETH position was built at $2,370 and is already profitable. That's a thoughtful position, not a panic buy.

Here's where I want to share something personal. During the 2022 bear market, I coordinated the Resilience Hub, a mentorship program for developers considering leaving the industry. One of the most common patterns I saw was not capitulation — it was the opposite. The people who survived the bear market were the ones who could pivot quickly when their primary strategies failed.

Huang Licheng's ability to fail twice on Bitcoin and immediately pivot to Ethereum — without hesitating — tells me this is a trader who has been through enough cycles to know that the market doesn't care about your conviction. The market only cares about price, and the one who adapts fastest wins.

The Risk Map: Where This Gets Dangerous

Let me be clear about the risks in this situation, because that's what matters in a market like this.

Risk #1: The $2,370 Level Is Now a Battlefield

With $75 million in a long position at $2,370, this price level has become a technical and psychological battleground. If ETH drops below $2,370, Maji's position goes underwater. At 40x leverage (if the same approach is applied to ETH), a drop of just 2.5% would wipe out the position.

But here's the thing I've learned from analyzing liquidation cascades: the crowd watches these levels. If ETH starts approaching $2,370, more short sellers might pile in, expecting the liquidation cascade to drive prices lower. This creates a feedback loop that can accelerate price movements.

Risk #2: The "Revenge Trading" Trap

I've been watching high-leverage traders since before DeFi Summer. And I've seen a pattern: when a trader fails to enter a position, they often become even more aggressive on the next attempt — driven by frustration and the desire to make back what they "lost."

The failed BTC trades cost only $165,000, which is relatively small for a fund operating at this level. But the psychological impact of a failed trade is larger than the financial impact. If Huang is feeling the need to "make up for" the BTC miss, he might overextend his ETH position.

Risk #3: Information Reliability

I have to mention this. This analysis is based on reported information about Maji's positions and activity. Without on-chain verification or exchange data confirmation, there's a possibility that some of this information is inaccurate or incomplete. The $75 million position — if real — is a significant position that would be visible in the market structure. But I can't confirm whether it's leveraged or spot, or whether the position size has been fully filled.

The Counter-Intuitive: Why This Matters for the ETH Ecosystem

Here's the part that most market watchers will miss.

If Maji's $75 million ETH position is real, and if it's maintained, it's not just a trade — it's an implicit vote of confidence in Ethereum's ecosystem.

Why? Because a trader with access to high leverage on BTC (the largest, most liquid crypto asset) chose Ethereum instead. The only reason to do that is if you believe ETH's risk-reward ratio is better than BTC's.

That tells me the trade is not just about short-term price direction. It's about the structural position of ETH in the market.

In 2024, Ethereum has been fighting a bearish narrative. ETH/BTC ratio has been declining for months. But this trade suggests that someone with a large amount of capital is saying that the ETH/BTC ratio is going to be.

This could be because of:

• The ETF flows: While Ethereum ETFs have seen more modest inflows than Bitcoin ETFs, they've been steady. As more institutional money flows into ETH, the price floor is being raised.
• The Layer-2 ecosystem: The major layer-2s have been gaining traction in 2024. The cost reduction and increased throughput are making Ethereum more accessible, and this is driving real usage.
• The staking yield: ETH is a yield-bearing asset. At a time when Bitcoin is a "pure" asset, Ethereum's staking yield provides a floor for capital that has a yield requirement.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me step back and look at the bigger picture.

What This Means for You — The Takeaway

I've spent my career trying to understand how markets and communities intersect. I've seen how technology and narrative create momentum. And I've seen what happens when the narrative breaks.

This story is not just about Maji Fund's position. It's about what happens when a high-conviction trader has to pivot.

Here are the things I'm paying attention to:

First, watch ETH price. The $2,370 level matters. If ETH breaks above $2,370 with confidence and holds, it validates the entry. If it drops below $2,370, it doesn't necessarily mean a cascade, but it means the level has become resistance.

Second, watch for ETH liquidation data. If there are significant liquidation spikes on ETH perpetuals, that tells us the position is leveraged and under pressure. The market is telling us about the position's health.

Third, watch the ETH/BTC ratio. If this trade is truly a statement about ETH relative to BTC, the ratio should be moving in ETH's favor. It's been trended down for months, but if this is the bottom, we'll see it in the ratio.

Fourth, watch other large traders' behavior. If we see other large funds moving into ETH, it suggests this isn't just one trader — it's a trend.

The most important lesson I've learned from my time in this industry is this: The market doesn't care about your conviction. It only cares about the price. The moment you think you've got the market figured out, it will find a way to humble you.

I saw this in 2022. I saw this in the bear market of 2023. And I'll see it again — probably in the next few months.

The Takeaway: We're Watching a Chess Game, Not a Sprint

Huang Licheng and Maji Fund's pivot from BTC to ETH is not just a single trade. It's a statement — a statement about where the smartest (or at least the most aggressive) capital is flowing in this market cycle.

The failed BTC attempts, the $75 million ETH position, the HYPE and PUMP longs — these are all parts of a broader strategy. The strategy says: "ETH is the right vehicle for the next leg of this market."

Whether that strategy is correct — whether the market agrees — is something we'll find out in the coming weeks.

But I want to end with a thought about the ethics of leverage trading in this space.

I've been working in this industry for nearly two decades. I've seen the boom and bust cycles. I've seen the damage that excessive leverage can do — not just to individual traders, but to communities and ecosystems.

The 40x leverage approach is not just risky for the trader — it's risky for the entire market. When a large leveraged position gets liquidated, it can create a cascade effect. It can push prices down faster than they should naturally go.

This is not a criticism of Maji Fund specifically. It's a warning about what happens when high leverage is combined with large position sizes.

But here's the paradox: the same leverage that creates risk also creates liquidity. The same aggressive trading that can cause cascades also provides opportunities for other traders to enter the market.

The question is whether we, as a community, are ready to handle the consequences of this kind of trading.

I've been writing about this industry for a long time. I've seen the ICO boom, the DeFi summer, the NFT craze, and the bear markets. In every cycle, there's a moment when the market structure gets tested. When we find out whether our infrastructure is ready.

This moment — with Maji's $75 million position at $2,370 — is one of those tests.

Will the price hold? Will the position be managed well? Will the market digest this without cascades?

I don't have the answers. But I do know this: how we handle these tests determines whether the industry can grow into what it's meant to be.

The question isn't just whether Maji makes money. The question is whether we can handle the growing maturity of this market without losing what makes it special.

That's the real test.

Final Thought

In the end, this isn't just about a fund manager's position or a market pivot. It's about what we're building together. Every trade, every position, every failed 40x leverage attempt — it's all part of the collective experiment we call decentralized finance.

I've been writing about this space for a long time. And I've seen enough cycles to know that the biggest profits — and the biggest losses — are made when people have the courage to act on their convictions.

Huang Licheng's conviction was rejected twice on Bitcoin. He didn't give up. He rotated. He adapted. He found another way.

In this market, that's the most valuable skill you can have.

Adapt or die. That's not just a slogan — it's the reality of this industry.

Andrew Wilson is a cryptographer and open-source evangelist based in Hong Kong. He has been analyzing crypto markets since 2017 and believes that decentralization is the future of human coordination.