{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,14]],"date-time":"2026-08-14T22:27:45Z","timestamp":1786746465460,"version":"build-2736575974"},"posted":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"group-title":"SSRN","reference-count":0,"publisher":"Elsevier BV","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"<jats:p>On October 10, 2025, a geopolitical shock triggered the largest forced deleveraging in cryptocurrency history. Over $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated within 24 hours across centralized (CeFi) and decentralized (DeFi) venues. This paper exploits the event as a natural experiment: identical assets (BTC, ETH) experienced the same exogenous shock simultaneously across architecturally distinct trading venues. We identify five architectural design axes along which venue outcomes diverged: (1) oracle design, (2) liquidation engine transparency, (3) order book vs. AMM liquidity provision, (4) auto-deleveraging mechanics, and (5) system availability under stress. We document that DeFi lending protocols (Aave) processed $250M+ in liquidations and remained continuously operational with only modest reserve deficits, while the largest CeFi exchange (Binance) experienced transfer-subsystem degradation, venue-specific stablecoin depegs, and used a liquidation reporting architecture that external analysts argued understates true liquidation volumes by up to 100x during bursty conditions. On-chain perpetual exchanges (Hyperliquid) maintained 100% uptime processing $10.3B in liquidations but triggered auto-deleveraging for the first time in two years. We argue that market microstructure observability is an architectural property, not a data collection problem, and propose a framework for evaluating venue resilience under tail risk.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.2139\/ssrn.6559300","type":"posted-content","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,20]],"date-time":"2026-04-20T16:13:02Z","timestamp":1776701582000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Same Shock, Same Assets, Different Microstructure: A Comparative Analysis of CeFi and DeFi Venue Performance During the October 10, 2025 Cryptocurrency Cascade"],"prefix":"10.2139","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0005-8477-9393","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Boon Chuan","family":"Lim","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"78","container-title":[],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,14]],"date-time":"2026-08-14T21:31:14Z","timestamp":1786743074000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ssrn.com\/abstract=6559300"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.6559300","relation":{},"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"subtype":"preprint"}}