The margin a position ties up at a given leverage, and the leverage a position implies for the margin you have, which are the same sum asked from two directions.
Leverage is presented as a feature and is better understood as a ratio you are choosing. A broker offering 1:500 is describing a ceiling, not an instruction.
What matters is effective leverage: your total exposure divided by your equity. That is the number that decides what a one per cent move does to the account.
A model, not a quote. Every figure here comes from what a broker publishes or what you type, and real fills, spreads and rates move.
A $10,000 account holding a $40,000 position is running 4:1 effective leverage. A 1% move costs $400: 4% of the account. Recoverable.
The same account holding $600,000 is at 60:1. The margin at 1:500 would be only $1,200, so the account looks comfortably funded. A 1% move now costs $6,000, which is 60% of the account.
Nothing about the broker changed. The margin requirement was met in both cases. Only the exposure moved.
The margin figure is what the broker requires you to post to open the position. It is collateral, not a cap.
Losses are driven by the position and the market's movement, and they can exceed the margin, which is what negative balance protection exists to limit, where it applies.
Available leverage is a ceiling. What is dangerous is high effective leverage, which is a choice about position size, a trader can hold 2:1 at a broker offering 1:500.
Your actual exposure divided by your equity, as distinct from the maximum the broker permits. It is the only leverage figure that describes your account.
Because regulators concluded that higher caps produced retail losses at a rate they were not willing to accept. Offshore entities of the same brand frequently offer far more.
Posting more margin lowers effective leverage for a given position, which does reduce risk. Meeting a lower margin requirement on a larger position does the opposite.