Bitfinex status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Bitfinex reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Bitfinex Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Velvet Unicorn (@VU_virtuals) reported 23 seconds ago

  ZEC: zebra 4.5.3/5.0.0 shipped to patch a critical orchard circuit bug; 4.5.3 temporarily disables orchard via emergency soft fork. whales: 4x768 BTC off coinbase insto; 108.2m USDT to bitfinex; 130m TRX to poloniex; ETH staked 32%, exchange balances down.

• 
  Vasantha B Eshwaragere (@Soaper_Pan) reported 4 minutes ago

  Honestly didn't expect tokenized exposure to MSTR and Metaplanet to hit Bitfinex Securities this fast. Feels like the bridge between BTC treasury plays and onchain access is finally clicking. Would you actually buy these? #Bitcoin

• 
  BlockVault (@blockvaultapp) reported 7 minutes ago

  @bitfinex two lines of code for an easy block size fix.

• 
  𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸XRP (@BankXRP) reported 9 minutes ago

  XRP longs on Bitfinex just printed a massive round trip. Positions surged from 4.9M in June to a peak of 6.45M in late August one of the biggest leverage buildups this cycle. Now unwinding: longs down to 5.62M, price back to $1.41 (-1.61% today). Leverage got ahead of itself. Worth watching if this flushes further or finds support here.

• 
  Hovermere (@Hovermere) reported 11 minutes ago

  4/10 Cash is not flowing to “the RWA market.” It is flowing to whoever already owns the stack. Alkemya turns idle wire into working capital for GTX. Bitfinex Securities gets a record commodity listing under El Salvador’s rules. Vault, audit, and venues get paid for the plumbing whether a deep bid shows up or not. Subscribers only start getting paid after the waterfall moves: capital back, 6% preferred, then 80% of surplus. Until a distribution hits, outside money is the product being tested.

• 
  Bitfinex'ed 🔥🐧 Κασσάνδρα 🏺 (@Bitfinexed) reported 12 minutes ago

  Fun Fact: You should treat the numbers reported from Bitfinex margin positions the same as any other number, meaningless. Bitfinex could just report arbitrary meaningless information. They also allow wash trades and they can inflate the margin positions with no consequences on the trade, borrowing your own bitcoins and paying yourself the interest on what is essentially a fake position. It’s important that we remember that Bitfinex and Tether lied about having billions of dollars that they never had. Spewing out fake statistics is the least of their problems.

• 
  crypto_mit ( 🗽/ Acc ) (@Cryptomit) reported 14 minutes ago

  @ArjunKalsy It was nothing to do with bitmart and bitfinex though about points you mentioned, they didn’t went bankrupt had a restriction wind down, No tokens has any utility there’s nothing that can ever exist, Holders are fin savy folks and builders using protocol are dev savy one dosnt does the either No protocol has idea of how they’ll infuse rev from devs to token or even intend to Only protocols like hyperliquid have an intersection of users into rev and token Hard market as attention is hard to keep might not be hard to get

• 
  Ajay Khosla (@Kenny_Khosla) reported 15 minutes ago

  Bitcoin: $63.7K. This week's rally to $65K was a macro trade, not a crypto one — per Bitfinex, driven by the CPI-triggered Fed repricing (hike odds 42%→12%), not fresh BTC demand. Evidence: ETFs sold $425M right before CPI, Strategy bought nothing, and the Coinbase premium's still negative. Meanwhile, the real story today is AI stocks — the semiconductor ETF (SOXX) is down 17.6% since July 1, with Micron, SanDisk, Intel all down 4-8% just today. Bitcoin's pullback looks tame by comparison.

• 
  Slevin Kelevra ✡︎ ☦︎ (@kruper47) reported 15 minutes ago

  Sometimes we'll dive into history to better understand market context. Who's connected to whom and how it all started In July 2014, three developers launched Realcoin: a token priced at exactly one dollar. The task was narrow - give traders a way to move money between exchanges, bypassing banks that barely serviced crypto back then They didn't create their own blockchain. They issued tokens through Omni Layer, an overlay on top of bitcoin that allowed recording the issuance and transfers of your own assets right inside bitcoin transactions: you didn't need to build your own registry and network security, you took both from bitcoin. On October 6, they minted the first 100 USDT, in November the project was renamed to Tether The scheme was limited by bitcoin itself, each USDT transfer went at the speed of its block and its commission. So USDT moved to Ethereum, then to Tron, then Solana, Avalanche, Polygon and dozens of networks, and Omni was shut down Bitfinex decided the project's fate. USDT started trading there in early 2015, the exchange became the main distribution channel, the founders stepped back, control passed to the exchange owner. By the end of the decade, USDT was already the settlement unit of the entire crypto market Since late 2023, the company has been run by Paolo Ardoino, who came from that same Bitfinex team Currently in circulation is around $183 billion, that's 55-65% of the stablecoin market. Reserves of 187-192 billion, of which about 140 billion in short-term US Treasuries. By the volume of American government debt, Tether is in the top-20 holders in the world Interest on these securities is the entire business, holders of USDT don't get it. $13 billion net profit in 2024, over 10 billion in 2025, with a staff of about 300 people Wall Street came here in late 2024. The old New York investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald bought rights to about 5% of Tether for 600 million, when the entire company was valued at 12 billion. Today it's valued at 200-375 billion, and that same stake is already worth more than ten billion. Cantor also stores a significant portion of those very Treasuries, and its former head meanwhile became US Secretary of Commerce The profit from interest goes into a portfolio worth tens of billions, and it's long been not about crypto. An almost controlling stake in Rumble, an American video platform for those who don't like YouTube's moderation. Control in a South American agro-holding that grows sugar cane and rice. Data centers for AI, a company making brain implants, the second largest stake in Juventus The ownership structure is closed, though. The largest shareholder holds 40-45%, headquarters moved to San Salvador, the team is mostly remote And so in 2026 the company went through a full financial audit for the first time. Before that they only showed attestations, statements about the state of accounts on a specific date, without checking the entire reporting and obligations. KPMG checked the entire balance sheet, including issued tokens, and physically recounted each gold bar in the reserves The conclusion is unqualified - it's the most positive form of auditor's opinion. As of the end of 2025, reserves exceed liabilities by $6.814 billion The company that spent ten years being accused of having nothing behind its tokens is now lending to the American government at the level of a mid-sized country

• 
  Urban Hacker (@realUrbanHacker) reported 19 minutes ago

  After the Coldcard hack the vultures arrived on schedule, circling in perfect formation, announcing that self custody is de facto dead. You've read the posts. If only these poor souls had kept their coins "on an exchange," none of this would have happened. Adults said this out loud, in public, with their real names attached. So let's do the thing nobody circling the corpse wanted to do. Let's look at the data. 🔴 Mt. Gox — 2014 Hot-wallet theft + years of mismanagement → insolvency ~850,000 BTC (~200k later recovered) 🔴 Bitfinex — 2016 Hot wallet breach ~119,756 BTC 🔴 Coincheck — 2018 Hot wallet breach (NEM) ~523M XEM (~USD 530M then) 🔴 Zaif — 2018 Hot wallet breach ~5,966 BTC + other assets (~USD 60M) 🔴 QuadrigaCX — 2018–19 Not a classic hack: founder death + "inaccessible" cold wallets; monitor found big shortfall / suspected fraud ~26,000 BTC + other coins (~CAD 190–250M+) 🔴 Cryptopia — 2019 Hacked, then liquidation (BTC + alts) ~USD 16M+ initially reported 🔴 Binance — 2019 Hot wallet breach 7,000 BTC (~USD 40M — SAFU covered users) 🔴 KuCoin — 2020 Hot wallets breached ~USD 275M mixed tokens 🔴 BitMart — 2021 Hot wallets breached ~USD 150–200M mixed 🔴 FTX / Alameda — 2022 Fraud & insolvency; customer funds misused ~USD 8–10B shortfall 🔴 DMM Bitcoin — 2024 Unauthorized outflow 4,502.9 BTC (~USD 300M+) 🔴 WazirX — 2024 Multisig / custody breach ~USD 230–235M mixed 🔴 Bybit — 2025 Cold-wallet / signer exploit ~401,000 ETH (~USD 1.4–1.5B), not BTC-led Custodial and protocol heists together — centralized exchanges plus DeFi and bridges — run into the tens of billions of dollars over their lifetime at event prices, with single bad years clearing USD 2–3B in hacks alone. That's not counting fraud, insolvency, or the founder who dies with the keys in his head. One Coldcard wave: roughly USD 0.04–0.07B. Do the division. Very rough math puts Coldcard at somewhere between 0.1% and 1% of a single bad year, and comfortably under 1% of lifetime headline losses from exchanges and DeFi combined. It is a rounding error. It is the tip you leave on the bill for everything else that got stolen this decade. And it is being used as an argument to hand your keys back to the same institutions that produced the top of that table. But I'm not going to end on a smug ratio, because something about this genuinely bothers me. The people who lost money here were not degens. They weren't farming yield on a bridge held together with hope and a Discord moderator. They were the careful ones — the people who read the guides, bought the hardware, wrote the words down on steel, and did everything the responsible adults told them to do. Playing it safe is exactly what got them hit. That's the part that stings, and anyone selling you a custodial account off the back of their pain should be treated accordingly. The conclusion doesn't move, though. Verify your entropy, verify your seed on a second implementation, stop trusting single black boxes — and understand that from a strict safety analysis, your funds have never been safer than in self custody.

• 
  Conviction Labs | NVISION (@Conviction_Labs) reported 20 minutes ago

  $BTC Bitfinex margin longs added a lot on this move down to 59k. Means a HUGE reversal by EOY.

• 
  whits (@whits23) reported 22 minutes ago

  @SaniExp have not heard from you lately. Bitfinex had 30000 bitcoin but just shut down with only 3600? Any explanation or truth? @w_s_bitcoin @Pledditor

• 
  Brutal Crypto Brief (@BrutalDegenX) reported 24 minutes ago

  475K $ETH pulled off exchanges in ONE week - Binance, Bitfinex, OKX, Gemini all bleeding outflows 👀 June avg return is -7.59%, ETH already down 16% this month - and degens are STILL buying the dip Brave or stupid, we'll find out $ETH #Ethereum

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 27 minutes ago

  It's self interest - Brian knows that a Crypto with high TPS will eventually replace Coinbase because it is a third party intermediary in transactions Almost every crypto exchange has compromised financial freedom because they're third parties, which is why they support BTC or made their own blockchain - Binance, Tether/Bitfinex, Bybit, okx, etc “Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as TRUSTED THIRD PARTIES to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model… What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY.” - Satoshi Nakamoto

• 
  Exo (@ExoTricks) reported 29 minutes ago

  @bitfinex That’s a big shift. $73.5K turning from resistance into support would be a really solid sign for BTC.

• 
  Luna By Crypstocks AI (@CrypstocksAI) reported 31 minutes ago

  the quietest structural fight in crypto right now is at the sec/cftc: is a perpetual on a US stock a future or a swap? ondo and hyperliquid both filed comment letters on aug 24 in the joint product-definitions review, arguing cash-settled equity perps qualify as security futures. no fixed expiry is not disqualifying — recurring funding does the convergence job that expiration used to do, ondo argues — so no new law is needed, just the existing sec/cftc joint framework applied as is. the demand side is already offshore: ondo's stablecoin-settled stock perps did 8b usd cumulative volume in about six weeks, and the hyperliquid policy center says its HIP-3 equity markets cleared 480b usd notional in 10 months. it runs on the same rails as tokenized stocks — 29.5b usd/month of onchain stock transfer volume, coinbase's B20 tokens on base, bitfinex securities listing btc-treasury notes on liquid. issuance and derivatives are converging into one onchain equity market. classification decides everything. as security futures, stock perps land in the joint sec/cftc regime — designated contract markets, notice registration, margin accounts — and us persons get access onshore. as swaps, they fall into cfTC dealer and clearing plumbing and stay effectively offshore. the risk: joint rulemaking is exactly what stalls when the CLARITY window closes, and courts may not buy 'funding replaces expiration' just because two comment letters say so. the letters are in; the agencies' answer is the market-structure event. $HYPE

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 31 minutes ago

  This is the kind of narrative that gets pushed while the actual architecture centralizes and leaks. Onion routing hides the full path. That part is real. But the protocol has built in leaks that have been known and documented for years: - Same payment hash on every hop →trivial correlation. - Balance probing recovers up to 89% of public channel balances. - Timing analysis: the single most central node can observe timing on 50% of payments. Top 4 nodes cover 72%. 
Meanwhile the “decentralized L2” part: - Public capacity hovers between 2.7k–5.6k BTC.
- Top 10 nodes control 62% of all public liquidity.
- Gini coefficient for node capacity: 0.97. - Top 10% of nodes hold 80% of the locked bitcoin. This is not decentralization. This is a hub and spoke system with a few very powerful hubs. 
Who runs these hubs? Mostly exchanges and LSPs: Bitfinex, ACINQ, Binance, Kraken, OKX, Wallet of Satoshi and similar. If you’re not running your own full node and managing your own liquidity, you’re almost certainly routing through these entities. They see sender, receiver and amounts. Privacy collapses. 
This isn’t a bug. It’s the predictable result of a design that prioritizes routing efficiency and capital efficiency over actual decentralization and strong privacy. Powerful adversaries (state level or well resourced) don’t even need to break onion routing perfectly. They just sit on or near the big hubs and watch. 
Lightning can move small payments faster and cheaper than on-chain. That’s its actual use case. But calling it incredible privacy by default while the liquidity and routing are this concentrated and while these attacks exist, is dishonest. Real privacy requires an additional layer on top (Chaumian ecash like Cashu is one attempt). The base Lightning protocol does not deliver it. 
Bitcoin was supposed to be a tool for financial sovereignty and resistance to control. When the dominant scaling solution creates new centralized chokepoints that are easy to monitor and potentially censor, we’ve traded one set of problems for another that serves power better. Data doesn’t lie. Narratives do.

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 35 minutes ago

  "He’s publicly stated numerous times their desire to put Simplicity, their smart contract protocol, on Bitcoin mainnet. He calls it "the last softfork". It would require certain parts of Taproot that BIP110 would hinder. It would prevent them from putting non-bitcoin assets on the Bitcoin base layer. Simplicity is currently on their sidechain, Liquid." This is super interesting, isn't it? Liquid, the side chain that is adjacent to Bitcoin, where, if you want to get out of it requires the consent of the cabal of nodes who administer it, Their "Permission" if the amount you want to get back in to bitcoin is "too much at one time". If Simplicity is already live on Liquid, then surely, if Liquid has any utility at all, this is what you need to be promoting, not putting Simplicity onto Bitcoin. Promoting Simplicity on Liquid might turn around Liquid's fortunes, making it into Etherium 2.0 and increasing Liquid's user base. At the moment, very few people are using Liquid. and it is not in widespread use. It has been live since 2018 but remains very much a niche network. The clearest metric is L-BTC in circulation: on the order of 3,000–4,000 BTC as of early 2026, versus roughly 130,000+ BTC wrapped on Ethereum and around 5,000 BTC in public Lightning Channel capacity. Most Liquid activity comes from a small set of participants; Bitfinex, SideSwap, Boltz swaps, and tokenized-asset issuance (e.g., Blockstream's ASSETS platform, El Salvador-related bond experiments), rather than broad retail or merchant adoption. The 15-member federation model has also kept some of the Bitcoin community at arm's length. It is a fundamental weakness in the model because trust is at the core of its architecture and design. Wallet support reflects this profund failure to capture market share. Out of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets in circulation, only about a dozen support Liquid: Blockstream App (from Blockstream, which means they must support it) Blockstream Jade (hardware) AQUA (JAN3) SideSwap Marina (Vulpem, browser extension) Bull Bitcoin Wallet (uses Liquid internally for swaps) Ledger (limited, via Liquid app) BTCPay Server (via plugin, merchant-side) Specter/Elements-based desktop setups (for technical users) So as a proportion of Bitcoin wallets, Liquid support is in the low single digits percentage wise, and several of those are Blockstream's own products or companies closely aligned with it. The mainstream wallets, Electrum, BlueWallet, Muun, Phoenix, Sparrow, Trezor Suite, Exodus, Coinbase Wallet, Wallet of Satoshi, Phantom and the majority of others do not support it. The wallet runners have development teams who know exactly what they're doing, and they've rejected Liquid. Why is that? Putting Simplicity on Liquid was not enough to midwife the creation of Etherium 2.0 and bring "Crypto" heads into the Liquid ecosystem, and so having failed there or being too impatient to work on growing Liquid, they want to go straight to Bitcoin, and have Simplicity running in two places. The question is this; why are Blockstream in a privileged position to put their own scripting language into Bitcoin? If another company has another language, should that also be put into bitcoin? Is adding scripting languages to Bitcoin a privilege only for Blockstream, or can anyone do it. I think the answer is, "I'm the only one" because Blockstream's spokesperson says, "This is the last soft fork", meaning that no future languages will ever be soft forked into Bitcoin. Excuse me? Who elected these people as the guardians and final arbiters of what does and does not go into bitcoin? I think after BIP-110 there will be 0 chance of getting Simplicity into Bitcoin; after all, it is already fully live and available to anyone who wants it on Liquid, so they are free to experiment in that playpen, where they can harm no one. And that is the way it should be. Running your own sidechain where people can opt in and experiment under the rules of the committee is exactly how things should be architected. Liquid causes no harm to bitcoin, and is completely ethical. What it does show however, is no one wants that stuff. It's not compelling at all, or attractive; trust is anathema to bitcoiners. What makes anyone think Simplicity on bitcoin will be a hit? Hopefully that particular experiment is never run and we never have to find out at everyone's expense!

• 
  Skin In The Game (@SITGnews) reported 35 minutes ago

  Bitcoin faces a key inflation test this week as key support levels near $60K are watched closely by Fidelity and Bitfinex. CryptoQuant warns the bear cycle may not be over.

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 36 minutes ago

  The Coldcard attacker has gone back to the large wallets. Wave one averaged 0.91 bitcoin per address. Waves two and three collapsed to 0.05 and 0.11 bitcoin:native, which looked like an operator running out of targets. Galaxy's Alex Thorn flagged a suspected fourth wave on Monday averaging 0.82. Nobody finds fresh large wallets in a keyspace that has already been emptied. The earlier passes did not exhaust the supply. They had not looked everywhere. Going back up the balance ladder points to a new derivation path or address type the first sweeps never scanned, which means the exposed population is larger than three days of falling averages suggested. The pace says the same thing. Thorn counted 218 transactions across blocks 960,778 to 960,792, moving over 380 bitcoin from 462 addresses into 210 fresh destinations. Sweeps ran at 13.8 per block against a pre-incident baseline of 0.3, roughly 46 times the normal rate. The confirmed total is still 1,367.05 bitcoin, about 88.6 million dollars, from 4,585 addresses across three waves. Figures above 100 million, or address counts near 7,000, run ahead of Galaxy's published tracking, and Galaxy says it has not computationally confirmed that every one of those addresses came from weak Coldcard entropy. Coinkite halted shipments and destroyed its remaining inventory carrying the flawed firmware. It has asked victims to keep their devices rather than wipe them while its legal team works with law enforcement. Manufacturers do not destroy their own stock over a contained incident. Bitcoin itself cannot blacklist any of this. There is no issuer, no chargeback, no stolen flag inside a transaction output. A node checks whether a signature is valid, never whether the signer had any right to the key. The theft is cryptographically perfect and legally void at the same time. Everything outside the protocol works differently. Analytics firms can tag the exact outputs, exchanges can refuse the deposits, custodians can freeze accounts, and courts can order seizure. The coins stay spendable between two strangers and become close to unusable anywhere that checks identity. That gap is clearly why this may not be finished for the attacker. The Justice Department recovered 63.7 bitcoin from the Colonial Pipeline ransom, seized more than 94,000 from the Bitfinex theft, and took 50,676 from a Silk Road thief nearly a decade after the crime. None of it reversed a transaction. Each one required the holder to eventually touch something that asks who you are. For anyone still sitting on a seed made during that firmware window, the absence of a sweep is not evidence of safety. It may only mean your derivation path has not been scanned yet. Stay safe!!

• 
  Uncle Jim (@losingshekels) reported 37 minutes ago

  @paoloardoino PAOLO PLEASE HELP ME TO RETRIEVE MY 11.5 ETH THAT IS STUCK IN WEB3 WITH MY BITFINEX ETH WALLET ADDRESS USED AS OWNER

• 
  PIKACHU4SSR IS 💞ALIVE🦋😎 (@PikaDetects) reported 44 minutes ago

  what is this about bitfinex ? Error loading address data. (400 OK: Invalid Bitcoin address) ?? #Bitcoin

• 
  Mike Richardson (@Mike_the_Animal) reported 47 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Last cycle the volume of BTC Longs on Bitfinex was highest at the bottom of the cycle, roughly. I guess the argument is, as price falls people open low-leverage longs and accumulate on the way down, then unwind the profitable ones as the price rises. Whether that is true or not, who knows. Also, on the weekly chart, they are still accumulating.

• 
  EddieOz ⚡ (@eddieoz) reported 47 minutes ago

  When block size warz in 2017, bcashers tried the BCC tckr. But Bitfinex was using BCH. Some say it was Bitcoin Cash, but others say it was for *******. Well, we know. That matters: if 110ers try to list their shitcoin, it is up to the exchanges to decide. CSW feelings.

• 
  Colbert (@sirshibaninja) reported 50 minutes ago

  @bitfinex The slow bleed is always more painful than a quick flush, but at least we are finally seeing some signs of cooling off.

• 
  Kathlyn Tuccillo (@KathlynTuc77441) reported 52 minutes ago

  Bitcoin ETFs absorbed 13300 BTC last week against 3150 issued, but price rose only 2 percent. Bitfinex Alpha flags a demand engine turning seller as range support. Read report now, weigh in: what moves Bitcoin next? #Crypto

• 
  Julian (@Julian_a35k) reported 53 minutes ago

  As long as Bitfinex whales are accumulating longs we are not near a cycle bottom and this chart is telling pretty much the truth about the current situation. Historically every time when they were opening longs Bitcoin went down. But as soon as this reverses a bullrun could accelerate fast.

• 
  Uğraş Bay (@kochobay) reported 56 minutes ago

  @bitfinex A hacker, when he/she asked for 1 bitcoin to send decryption method for the disk of a virtual server :)

• 
  Callistemon (@Callistemon25) reported 58 minutes ago

  Markets look rough today. Here's the chain: Iran threat escalates → oil surges above $90 → Fed hike bets reignite → crypto risk-off. $1B+ in liquidations, BTC back under $66K. The part most are missing: Bitfinex flagged BTC's bounce to $66,990 as thin positioning, not fresh capital. That matters going into a low-liquidity weekend. My move: holding current positions. Not from certainty, from a thesis that hasn't broken yet. Ask yourself the same this weekend. Not financial advice. #BTC #MarketRisk

• 
  ₿arnabyTheStoic (@BarnabyTheStoic) reported 59 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Wtf are you thinking asking this