Risk-Based Auto-Deleveraging

TL;DR

This paper formulates auto-deleveraging (ADL) as an optimization problem to improve risk management on crypto futures exchanges, proposing a transparent, distribution-free policy that minimizes maximum leverage and accounts for multi-asset portfolios.

Contribution

It introduces a novel optimization-based framework for ADL, providing a canonical policy design and extending analysis to multi-asset, correlated portfolios with scalable solutions.

Findings

Optimal ADL policy minimizes maximum leverage among traders.

Water-filling leverage reduction is optimal and transparent.

Portfolio hedging affects optimal leverage reduction in multi-asset settings.

Abstract

Auto-deleveraging (ADL) mechanisms are a critical yet understudied component of risk management on cryptocurrency futures exchanges. When available margin and other loss-absorbing resources are insufficient to cover losses following large price moves, exchanges reduce positions and socialize losses among solvent participants via rule-based ADL protocols. We formulate ADL as an optimization problem that minimizes the exchange's risk of loss arising from future equity shortfalls. In a single-asset, isolated-margin setting, we show that under a risk-neutral expected loss objective the unique optimal policy minimizes the maximum leverage among participants. The resulting design has a transparent structure: positions are reduced first for the most highly levered accounts, and leverage is progressively equalized via a water-filling (or ``leverage-draining'') rule. This policy is distribution-free, wash-trade resistant, Sybil resistant, and path-independent. It provides a canonical and implementable benchmark for ADL design and clarifies the economic logic underlying queue-based mechanisms used in practice. We further study the multi-asset, cross-margin setting, where the ADL problem becomes genuinely multi-dimensional: the exchange must allocate a vector of required reductions across accounts with portfolios exposed to correlated price moves. We show that under an expected-loss objective the problem remains separable across accounts after introducing asset-level shadow prices, yielding a scalable numerical method. We observe that naive gross leverage can be misleading in this context as it ignores hedging within portfolios. When asset prices are driven by a single dominant risk factor, the optimal policy again takes a water-filling form, but now in a factor-adjusted notion of leverage, so that more effectively hedged portfolios are deleveraged less aggressively.