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 8 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.

• 
  Ajay Khosla (@Kenny_Khosla) reported 10 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.

• 
  EddieOz ⚡ (@eddieoz) reported 11 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.

• 
  Seyvion 𐤊 (@XSeyvion) reported 11 minutes ago

  $BTC Everyone is staring at the Fed, but the real support line is the ETF pipe staying open. Bitfinex is pointing at that $77,100 area because it was the level that framed the August break. Last week ETFs still pulled in net new cash even with a red day at the end. The other part is positioning stayed pretty controlled, so this is not a market that is forced to puke if rates get one more hawkish nudge. Also pay attention to who is holding it. Big wallets trimmed around 50,500 BTC since late June, and exchange plus ETF custody added about 59,100 BTC. That is supply moving into wrappers people hold longer, not coins getting prepped to swing trade. Rate fear can cap upside, but the bid is real if the ETF channel keeps absorbing dips. If that inflow slows, $77,100 stops being a line and turns into a trap door.

• 
  Cryptocrat (@Cryptocratico) reported 13 minutes ago

  🚨 $167M BTC SHIFTS BETWEEN MAJOR EXCHANGES Approximately 2,572 BTC moved in two transactions from a Bitfinex-labeled hot wallet to Kraken-labeled addresses. This is a sizeable cross-exchange liquidity shift—not evidence of a sale. Customer withdrawals, custody, OTC settlement or liquidity management remain possible.

• 
  The Block (@TheBlockCo) reported 19 minutes ago

  THE BLOCK: Bitfinex Securities has listed five tokenized products offering exposure to bitcoin treasury companies, including Strategy $MSTR, Metaplanet, H100, and Capital B. The equity-backed notes are issued via a Luxembourg securitization fund and trade against USD, USDT, and bitcoin bitcoin:native.

• 
  HypeDojo (@HypeDojo) reported 21 minutes ago

  > Coinbase down. > Binance down. > Bitfinex down. Hyperliquid remained online. Market participants don't care about promises during bull markets.They care about performance when everyone shows up at once.

• 
  PIKACHU4SSR IS 💞ALIVE🦋😎 (@PikaDetects) reported 21 minutes ago

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

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 22 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.

• 
  Max Gas (@aqualanga) reported 23 minutes ago

  $UNI already down 5.5% over 4 hours, and $2.8M just landed on Binance, Bitget, Gate and Bitfinex in the last hour. this isn't the early signal, it's supply still showing up while the move is already happening. one wallet, 0x28c6…1d60, sent $2.0M straight onto Binance by itself. that's not a smear of small deposits, that's one player moving real size. worth noting, "Ceffu Deposit" also pulled $101K off Binance in this window, and we've clocked that wallet before, it moved on LINK back in August and that one barely budged the price over the next 8 hours. mixed signals in the same hour. coins on exchanges can be sold, they're not guaranteed to be. go trace the $2.0M yourself if you don't believe the number. NFA

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 24 minutes ago

  Daily ForeDex CVD by Order Size (Spot) Snapshot 📸 🔸 Whales and Mega Whales Only 🔸 Based on a 1 month period (1M) 1. Binance : Decreased 📉 2. Bybit : No Change ➖ 3. Bitfinex (USD) : No Change ➖ 4. Bitfinex (USDT) : No Change ➖ ✅ Summary: A gradual step-down was seen on Binance, with no change across Bybit, Bitfinex USD, and Bitfinex USDT. [07-16-2026]

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 24 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%.

• 
  crypto_mit ( 🗽/ Acc ) (@Cryptomit) reported 24 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

• 
  8️⃣6️⃣.gwei (@russian_bot_69) reported 24 minutes ago

  @tulipking imo the only way to grow a centralized stablecoin is by having a dominant consumer product take the lead on pushing distribution: bitfinex pushed tether when it was dominant coinbase pushed usdc as second mover, still worked bc it was a rapidly growing coinbase doing the pushing not circle other exchanges now doing same eating market share being a middleman/infra (circle spinoff) just makes you slow to react and anticipate. they need their own dominant consumer app, whether its trading, payments or whatever can get them to dominate distribution if it was an actually 100% decentralized stablecoin like a liquity or raidollar then yeah the long term slow approach of credibly neutral middleman/infra could work. but all circle is offering is assurance of following regulations, which a decade in many players understand how to do themselves now

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 26 minutes ago

  @ProofOfMoney Bitcoin custodian (and exchange) failures form a long-running pattern of hacks, key mismanagement, fraud, and insolvency that has repeatedly locked or destroyed customer funds. These are not isolated events. Centralized platforms holding private keys create single points of failure—whether technical, operational, or human. Major Historical Failures Platform Year Estimated Loss Primary Cause Notes Mt. Gox 2014 ~850,000 BTC Prolonged security breach / poor controls Once handled >70% of global BTC volume. Bankruptcy; partial creditor repayments began years later and continued into 2025–2026. Net unrecovered portion still very large. Bitfinex 2016 119,756 BTC Multi-signature wallet vulnerability Significant hot-wallet/security failure. QuadrigaCX 2019 ~76,000 BTC + other assets Founder death + sole key control / alleged fraud Canadian exchange; Gerald Cotten held sole access to cold wallets. Funds largely inaccessible. Celsius 2022 Several billion USD Insolvency / risky lending Withdrawal freeze then bankruptcy after market downturn. FTX 2022 ~$8 billion shortfall Fraud (customer funds diverted to Alameda) One of the largest exchange collapses. Bankruptcy proceedings later recovered substantial value; some creditor classes received >100% of petition-date claims due to market recovery and asset management. Other notable cases include Prime Trust (2023) and related entities such as Fortress Trust, which faced insolvency, lost access to wallets/keys, and allegedly used customer funds improperly to cover shortfalls. Broader Context and Patterns •Hacks remain common (e.g., Bybit’s large 2025 incident involving ~$1.4–1.5 billion, primarily ETH, attributed to sophisticated attackers exploiting operational processes). •Key management failures (lost or inaccessible private keys) and commingling/misuse of customer assets appear repeatedly. •Insolvency cascades in 2022 (Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, Genesis, FTX) showed how lending and leverage amplify risks when platforms treat customer deposits as their own capital. •Recovery is often slow and incomplete. Mt. Gox creditors waited a decade-plus; FTX moved faster with better asset recovery but still involved multi-year processes and frozen access during bankruptcy. Independent archives tracking custody access failures (including exchange lockouts, inheritance issues, and operational barriers) document hundreds of cases, with a high percentage of known outcomes ending in blocked or constrained access for legitimate owners or heirs. Key Lessons Custodial arrangements introduce counterparty risk: you rely on the platform’s security, honesty, solvency, and operational competence. History shows these can fail catastrophically even at large, seemingly reputable firms. Self-custody eliminates that counterparty risk but shifts responsibility to the individual (seed phrase security, device integrity, inheritance planning, etc.). Hybrid approaches (e.g., multisig with careful key distribution) aim to balance the two. The repeated failures reinforce the core Bitcoin principle: not your keys, not your coins. Platforms can and do lose or lock customer Bitcoin through negligence, theft, or deliberate misuse.

• 
  PaperImperium (@ImperiumPaper) reported 26 minutes ago

  Thoughts: First, congratulations to Tether! Second, note this is for Tether International, S.A. de C.V. and NOT for the parent Tether Holdings, S.A. de C.V. For USDT holders, this is mostly what matters, but does not close off hypothetical scenarios where the parent company is burning down while the issuer entity stays clean. In theory, there’s corporate separation (subject to El Salvador’s laws, which I do not know). In practice, even without shenanigans, a parent entity that Has A Bad Time could dividend out all the excess reserves at any time, reducing the equity to zero. This could be to meet a margin call, tax obligation, whatever the parent needs money for. A distressed parent can also encourage the issuer to hold assets from or extend loans to affiliates (of which there are many with all the investments Tether Holdings makes) or up to the parent. And in fact loans from Tether to Bitfinex to cover a shortfall were the heart of a conflict with the NY attorney general in 2019. So if you’re the kind of counterparty that actually cares about an audit on Tether, you 1) want to see this audit, 2) want to look for related party transactions and loans, 3) look for any covenants or governance controls to keep the parent’s problems from becoming the issuer entity’s problems.

• 
  - ,, berrygummy🧸 ·˚ ༘ ꒱ (@inipitriii) reported 28 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

• 
  netrunner (@netrunner_btc) reported 29 minutes ago

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

• 
  Cosimo Capiτal ⚜️ (@CosimoCapital) reported 29 minutes ago

  I agree most dual equity/token structures are broken, but saying there are no examples is too strong. ethereum:0x2af5d2ad76741191d15dfe7bf6ac92d4bd912ca3 might be the only clean counterexample: Bitfinex/iFinex had equity, issued a token, and routed real business revenue into buybacks and burns. That is the key distinction. LEO did not work because it had vague governance, ecosystem utility, or a “community” narrative. It worked because the token had explicit, credible value accrual. The lesson is not that equity + token never works. The lesson is that it almost never works unless the token has a real economic sink tied to the business. Crypto Twitter has also changed. It is starting to act less like moonbois and more like activist investors. People are demanding value capture, capital return, burns, buybacks, transparency, and alignment. We should study what has actually worked and duplicate the mechanism instead of pretending every token needs to be a vibes-based governance asset.

• 
  sradic (@_sradic_) reported 31 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @paoloardoino @CRYPTO101Pod "Volume up, customer base up". Yeah, and? No fees, remember? The only saving grace could be if you're taking a cut from the lending market. If that's the case, bravo.

• 
  Golden Luco (@GoldenLuco) reported 35 minutes ago

  Bitfinex Alpha suggests key levels to watch for Bitcoin's next move, signaling potential trend shifts. Traders should monitor these support and resistance zones closely. Will Bitcoin break through or bounce back? Stay alert and share your thoughts! #Crypto #Bitcoin #Trading

• 
  lil retard (@comic) reported 41 minutes ago

  @theswansjr I bought my first stack of BTC in 2013 at $300. Lost 100+ BTC to mtgox and bitfinex hacks I’ve been a long term believer but the narrative isn’t intact anymore. Performance has been terrible. Taken over by grifters. Your capital is better invested in high growth companies with defensible technology’s

• 
  Hovermere (@Hovermere) reported 43 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.

• 
  Ricardo Martinez (@ricardoXMR) reported 43 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

• 
  donnie (@blackhack33) reported 46 minutes ago

  9/12 And exchange support hasn’t been perfect either. Bitfinex officially delisted GALA in March 2026, with withdrawals closing in May. That doesn’t prove fraud — exchanges delist tokens for many reasons. But it is an actual GALA delisting, not an X rumour.

• 
  BroadSword (@BroadSwordBoy) reported 46 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Go **** yourself you ******* imbecile!! You should know better than to ask something so ******* stupid!! ******* embarrassing for security. Hey @bitfinex you should fire whoever posted this / running this account. I'll make sure no one in my circles uses your platform ever!!!

• 
  Bitcoin Regime (@BitPrintzz) reported 50 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @PositiveCrypto It’s cold card issue reshuffle nothing than that. Look into URPD instead

• 
  Sheryl | Simple Crypto Advice (@syedaliakber2) reported 54 minutes ago

  🚨SOMEONE JUST OPENED A $16,000,000 $XRP LONG. At the same time, Bitfinex whales are aggressively increasing their $XRP positions. Wtf is going on???

• 
  Bitfinex'ed 🔥🐧 Κασσάνδρα 🏺 (@Bitfinexed) reported 1 hour 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.

• 
  No Quarter Brandolini 110 IQ Small Blocker (@FreeSpeechBTC21) reported 1 hour ago

  @BlueDavid BitMex went down.. is Bitfinex next?