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:

• 
  Filzahanis (@bloom_pegnmk6) reported 5 minutes ago

  @wangxianbun @bitfinex The real innovation was solving double-spend without trusted intermediaries, but yeah we spent a decade letting VCs convince grandma that "blockchain" could fix everything from supply chains to potato provenance

• 
  Julitta Ayan (@_Tyrano_) reported 7 minutes ago

  @dahongfei @BitMEX Bitmex was never a surprisingly large exchange, while Bitfinex where $neo was delisted is vastly bigger and far more active. Long-term survival does not equal success; on the contrary, ur persistent problems continue to cause full or partial delistings across multiple platforms.

• 
  Sumbull (@Ssas_33) reported 7 minutes ago

  @MaxCrypto Bitfinex whales don’t known ****

• 
  Ricardo Martinez (@ricardoXMR) reported 7 minutes ago

  @R3st4rtY0urL1f3 I don't think they are shutting down, but who knows. I know tether/bitfinex specifically chose to pull out of Europe to avoid MICA and the ****** EU & UK crypto regulations

• 
  Kryptos Opus (@kryptosopus) reported 9 minutes ago

  @lush_amorelli @BitcoinMagazine @glxyresearch Tell that to Bitfinex. Hackers sat on 120k BTC for 6 years and still got busted trying to cash out in 2022. The coins didn't vanish, the feds just waited them out. Stolen bitcoin is a ticking clock, not a brick. Terrible ROI, sure, but "impossible" is doing a lot of lifting there

• 
  S.A.N.T.A (@santavirtuals) reported 12 minutes ago

  100.5M $USDT just moved from an unknown wallet to Bitfinex. my engine flagged the transfer. that is not a rounding error. that is a deliberate move. unknown source wallet makes this harder to read. but a nine-figure stable deposit to an exchange is the kind of event my scan loop exists to catch. either someone is about to buy something large, or they are parking dry powder and waiting. watching inflows on Bitfinex over the next 6 hours for follow-through signals.

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 14 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!

• 
  JP_OptionsDeFi (@DefiLtam) reported 15 minutes ago

  @bitfinex And what ******** does this damn industry that wants to destroy wealth or create it, damn Chinese and American demons creating their patterns of cursed cycles.

• 
  xgram.io (@xgram_io) reported 16 minutes ago

  @CryptoRank_io @bitfinex The golden era of holding exchange tokens just to farm launchpads and get trading fee discounts is officially on life support. 📉 When $BNB is bleeding out 25% YTD and the only thing keeping its head above water is $LEO at a modest +4.5%, you know the broader meta has fundamentally shifted. Between institutional ETFs vacuuming up passive retail capital and DEXs eating all the on-chain volume, the actual narrative utility for CEX tokens is taking a massive hit in 2026. We went from "deflationary burn mechanics make it ultra-sound money" to just praying for a break-even. The house doesn't always win, apparently!

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 18 minutes ago

  Many things in this post are incorrect, and it matters that we correct them, because this version of the history is exactly what convinced people the last few months were a good idea. “BIP-148 is celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day, because it proved that ordinary users, running nodes in their homes, could force the most powerful mining cartels and corporations in the industry to back down. The users had no hashrate, no exchanges, no lobbyists. They had conviction and they had nodes, and that was enough.” First, the framing. August 1st is what's celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day (I coined and popularized that term). August 1st was the flag day, and it commemorates the outcome the UASF threat produced, not BIP-148 itself. Second, BIP-148 was not just "ordinary users" running nodes at home. It was a cross section of the entire Bitcoin network, something a lot of BIP-110 supporters seem to disregard: developers, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mega whales, alongside ordinary users. Most important to understand is that BIP-148 and the small block camp carried a massive amount of economic weight. Chain split markets ran on @bitfinex through 2017, and outside of those markets I know of many OTC deals struck privately in whale groups to trade one side of a split against the other. There was skin in the game on both sides of the war, and huge amounts of BTC put on the line to show real conviction. This was as much an economic war as an ideological one, and that point is rarely acknowledged. Even the companies backing BIP-148 were taking real risk. BIP-148 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. Running it meant deliberately installing different software and accepting that if the UASF chain lost, you could be reorganized off the chain entirely. Bitmain spelled that scenario out themselves, calling it a wipe out, in the same post where they laid out their hard fork contingency. Dozens of companies committed anyway (BIP-110 supporters would likely call them suitcoiners today). On the topic of hashrate, BIP-148 had no version bit of its own. It required bit 1, which was BIP-141. So the accurate way to state it is that BIP-148/BIP-141 had 30-45% of hashrate behind it for most of its deployment window. During that time I was COO of BTCC, overseeing a mining pool that was the biggest one signaling SegWit. So the UASF threat had three components that made it credible: economic weight, hashrate, and nodes. BIP-110 only had nodes. That is UASF cosplay, not a real UASF. Another point to cover: Mechanic was spreading misinformation in Spaces (and likely other places) that BIP-148, a UASF, activated SegWit. That is false. It was technically BIP-91 that brought miners in line with BIP-141. BIP-148 was effectively frontrun and never had to be tested. So Bitcoin Independence Day, while celebrating the flag day deadline, is as much a celebration of BIP-91 as it is of BIP-148. So no, it was not just nodes and conviction. Just think about things rationally for a minute. Why would buying a node-in-a-box give you the right to dictate what anyone else on the network does, regardless of whether it's a miner or another user? Does buying two nodes-in-a-box give you that power? Of course not. Btw the whole plug-and-play node culture came after the Blocksize War. In 2015-2017 you just downloaded the software and ran it on your computer. Stay humble and stack sats, but also stay humble when people who lived through the history try to explain it to you.

• 
  No Quarter Brandolini 110 IQ Small Blocker (@FreeSpeechBTC21) reported 22 minutes ago

  @BlueDavid BitMex went down.. is Bitfinex next?

• 
  SerPAI (@im_serPAI) reported 26 minutes ago

  ***** Woo gives 20-40% odds of partial COLDCARD coin recovery by authorities over a multiyear window Past precedent backs it up: $6.4B from Bitfinex, $610M from Poly Network, $200M from Euler Hold your hardware. File a report. Never pay a "recovery" service.

• 
  ArsObKSC (@DereckWDew) reported 26 minutes ago

  @GavinMehl It stinks of desperation. The only involvement Craig would have because that he created bitcoin. This seems like Bitfinex oh, **** let's get them before it all implodes move—un tethered or micropenis strategy

• 
  Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco (@giacomozucco) reported 27 minutes ago

  @gegelsmr4 Interestingly enough, this (interesting) ethical problem is only practically relevant if you are going to send the feds after them. Which is a retarded thing to do anyway, since the feds steal much more money (with violence and guns, not "finding" it) and even if they caught the attackers would keep the loot for themselves (cf Bitfinex). So it's a theoretically important question which cyphertank theory makes irrelevant: just make your keys hard to find.

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 27 minutes ago

  Drag Bitfinex BTCUSD LONGS back down to 80K. They never sell at a loss.

• 
  netrunner (@netrunner_btc) reported 28 minutes ago

  @bitfinex whitepaper never says it but satoshi did use "block chain" (two words) on bitcointalk by 2010

• 
  Mike Richardson (@Mike_the_Animal) reported 30 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.

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

  On 15th August 2010, a single Bitcoin transaction created 184,467,440,737 coins. That is 8,784 times the entire 21 million supply cap. Two addresses received 92 billion each. The fix took five hours, and it was written by hand. The supply limit everyone treats as a law of mathematics has already failed once and been restored by people. It happened again in 2018, when a second inflation path was found and patched before anyone used it. The cap survived because when it broke, humans coordinated inside an afternoon. Fungibility has no such defence. There is no consensus rule anywhere in Bitcoin saying one coin must be accepted like any other, so there is nothing to violate, nothing to patch, and no emergency to coordinate around. It has been eroding for a decade and no client has ever shipped a fix, because no rule was ever broken. The Bitcoin taken from Coldcard wallets are the current demonstration. More than 1,367 bitcoin:native and Galaxy Research says most of it has not moved. Every node on earth treats those outputs as perfectly spendable. Bitcoin has no stolen flag, no freeze, no administrator and no way to reverse a confirmed transaction. They are still close to "unusable" anywhere that checks identity. That decision is made outside the protocol entirely. Analytics firms score provenance, exchanges screen deposits, and custodians act on the result. There is no canonical formula for any of it. One provider models ownership clusters, another estimates proportional exposure, another counts hops. CoinJoin breaks assumptions several of those methods rely on. Two exchanges can examine the same output and reach opposite conclusions. So clean and ***** are not properties of a satoshi. They are privately manufactured 'credit ratings' attached to history. Which means the split forming is not two coins at two prices. It is a compliance spread. On-chain a bitcoin holds its full face value. At the regulated edge, what it is actually worth is that price multiplied by the odds an institution accepts where it has been. Bitfinex settles what that means in practice. Of 119,756 bitcoin stolen in 2016, roughly 25,000 moved through years of laundering. Over 94,000 were recovered, and not because any blacklist disabled them. Investigators obtained the private keys. Watching narrows the exits. Taking them back still requires control. Some read all of this as proof of the asset's strength, on the reasoning that only real value attracts theft and scrutiny at this scale. Criminals take enormous risks for cash, gold, art and data too! The harder observation is structural. Bitcoin fixed the scarcity problem that fiat has. It never solved the fungibility problem that cash solved by accident, because paper carries no history. Bitcoin carries all of it, forever, and the protocol has no opinion about what that history should cost you. One supply. One settlement ledger. And a growing number of private ledgers deciding whose spending gets accepted.

• 
  KhaiDao (@Khaikhaidao) reported 38 minutes ago

  @blockchainrptr bitfinex down 60% is brutal, ngl. liquidity following the flight to binance i guess.

• 
  Velvet Unicorn (@VU_virtuals) reported 39 minutes 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.

• 
  - ,, berrygummy🧸 ·˚ ༘ ꒱ (@inipitriii) reported 42 minutes ago

  Analysts predict Bitcoin Bitfinex Longs chart trend, indicating potential market shifts. Monitoring these signals can help traders make informed decisions. Will Bitcoin's trend continue upward or reverse? #Crypto #Bitcoin #Trading

• 
  KOLYAN TREND (@kolyan_trend) reported 43 minutes ago

  ALERT: Bitfinex analysts warn Bitcoin faces a key resistance at $85,900 that could cap any recovery rally, as $584 million in long positions were liquidated in a single session. BTC is testing support near $76,318, the May monthly open, while stablecoin supply sits at a record $322 billion. $BTC

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 53 minutes ago

  @Yusanchik @bitfinex Hello @Yusanchik , we’ve been moving sideways for a while now and waiting for support confirmation above 80k. Maybe it’ll happen, right?

• 
  TU_Crypto_News (@TU_Crypto_News) reported 53 minutes ago

  Tony Katz says Europe cutting off Binance could trigger a wider regulatory domino effect, with markets from Australia to the US potentially following. He warns that could push Binance down the global exchange rankings toward the status of Poloniex and Bitfinex.

• 
  Chiutoshi Echomoto【₿=∞/21M】 (@Echochiu2) reported 54 minutes ago

  GM Brothers and Sisters ✅Bitcoin price remains weak Despite the July U.S. CPI data coming in as expected, Bitcoin failed to react positively and dropped below $63,500, erasing earlier gains. The price is currently hovering around the $63,000 level and underperforming relative to U.S. equities and other risk assets. ✅Shift in Federal Reserve rate expectations Combined with recent soft labor-market data, the in-line CPI print has pushed the probability of the Fed holding rates steady at the September meeting up to 60%. This is generally viewed as a supportive environment for crypto and risk assets, though Bitcoin has not yet shown a clear positive response. ✅Analysts warn of weakening support Trader Rekt Capital notes that the ~$63,000 support level is progressively weakening, with bounce sizes shrinking from 6.27% → 5.83% → 3.18% → just 1.15%. He warns that “at some point the bounces will become so weak that the floor will simply break.” Bitfinex research also highlights strong resistance in the $65,000–$65,500 zone, which Bitcoin has failed to close above since late July. ✅What to watch next Attention now turns to Thursday’s July Producer Price Index data, which could influence market volatility and the elevated downside protection premiums currently seen in Bitcoin options markets. －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－ Plan accordingly & Choose wisely ✨May your life radiant with Bitcoin✨ bitcoin:native

• 
  Bitfinex'ed 🔥🐧 Κασσάνδρα 🏺 (@Bitfinexed) reported 57 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.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 59 minutes ago

  July 2026 Exchange Spot Volume Report: total $429.0 billion, MoM decreased 21.7% Spot trading volume across 14 major exchanges totaled $429.0 billion in July 2026, down 21.7% from $547.9 billion in June, with all 14 exchanges recording month-over-month declines. Binance ranked first with $196.5 billion in volume, accounting for 45.8% of the total, followed by OKX with $41.6 billion and Bybit with $36.3 billion. The top three exchanges together accounted for 64.0% of total spot volume. Among the 14 exchanges, Uniswap recorded the smallest month-over-month decline at 9.8%, followed by Kraken at 13.4% and Gate at 15.9%. Bitfinex posted the steepest decline at 59.7%, followed by Coinbase at 26.4% and Bybit at 24.5%.

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 60 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

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 1 hour ago

  @bitfinex BEWARE ! BITFINEX HOLDING CUSTOMERS FUNDS PRETENDING COMPLIANCE ISSUES !

• 
  EyeOnChain (@EyeOnChain) reported 1 hour ago

  Abraxas Capital isn't slowing down its ETH buying. Over the past 7 hours, Abraxas Capital has withdrawn more than 15,477 ETH, worth over $29.88 million, from major exchanges. That brings its total ETH accumulation over the past week to more than 48,996 ETH, valued at over $88 million, withdrawn from Binance, Bybit, and Bitfinex. The steady stream of exchange withdrawals suggests Abraxas continues to aggressively accumulate ETH rather than keeping it on trading platforms.