Bitstamp status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Bitstamp 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.

Bitstamp Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  FastX Exchange (@fastx_co) reported 59 seconds ago

  1. Robinhood is bringing crypto trading into its main UK app through Bitstamp, alongside an AI-powered crypto news widget. The saved lead has one independent confirmation. 2. The market leaned defensive: BTC -1.9%, ETH -2.6%, with 5 assets up and 10 down. LINK +2.4% and HYPE +1.5% led the eligible movers; ADA -4.6%, ZEC -3.8% and XRP -2.9% lagged.

• 
  TIAGO (@TiagoChain) reported 1 minute ago

  @justinsuntron @Bitstamp Access really does make it pop

• 
  Marc Baumann 🌔 (@marcb_xyz) reported 3 minutes ago

  this isn't just a Revolut problem. Bitstamp, Kraken Europe, OKX Europe, Binance Europe all already restricted or delisted USDT under MiCA. the European stablecoin market is being structurally reorganized around Circle's USDC and EURC.

• 
  Iso Ledger (@JamesDula82) reported 8 minutes ago

  Privacy coins didn't lose because the technology failed. They lost because it worked. Monero does exactly what it was built to do. Every transaction hidden by default. Sender concealed. Recipient concealed. Amount concealed. Ring signatures. Stealth addresses. Confidential transactions. The architecture makes transaction transparency technically impossible — that's not a flaw in the design, that's the entire point of it. ZCash went further. It built zero-knowledge proofs — a cryptographic system where a transaction can be mathematically verified as valid without revealing a single detail about who sent it, who received it, or how much moved. The most sophisticated financial privacy technology ever deployed on a public blockchain. And that's exactly why both of them are being quietly buried. Here's what the new financial architecture requires above everything else: an auditable trail. The FATF Travel Rule — now law across 85 jurisdictions — requires that every crypto transaction above $1,000 carry the identity of the sender and the recipient, and that this information travel with the payment through every institution in the chain. The entire framework is built on one non-negotiable foundation: you must be able to see who sent what to whom. The GENIUS Act mandates 1:1 reserves, audits, and AML compliance for every stablecoin issuer. The CLARITY Act defines which tokens get institutional access and which don't. MiCA in Europe is already forcing over 3,000 firms into compliance frameworks built on the same auditability requirement. Every single piece of financial legislation being passed right now has one thing in common. You can follow the money. You must be able to follow the money. A protocol designed to make that impossible isn't just non-compliant. It's architecturally incompatible with the entire system being built. The exchanges didn't need to be told twice. Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Huobi, OKX, and Bitstamp all removed or restricted Monero. 73 exchanges delisted it in 2025 alone. The EU is phasing in full custodial bans on privacy coins by 2027. Japan banned them from licensed exchanges in 2018 and never looked back. Dubai banned them from regulated financial zones in early 2026. They didn't ban possession. They didn't need to. They just made sure no regulated platform would touch them — no exchange listing, no institutional custody, no ETF pathway, no on-ramp. You can still own them. You just can't get in or out anywhere that matters. You don't criminalize the exit. You just make sure nobody can use it. And here's what makes this story darker than most people realize. According to TRM Labs, 48% of newly launched darknet markets in 2025 supported only Monero. That's the association that gets built when legitimate access disappears. The technology didn't change. The user base did. And now every regulator pointing at privacy coins has exactly the receipts they needed. The trap was elegant. Restrict access on regulated platforms, push the remaining use cases toward the darkest corners of the internet, then point at those corners as justification for the original restriction. XRP has no privacy layer. Every transaction is publicly visible on the ledger. That's not a compromise. That's the architecture that puts it in the DTCC patent, in the JPMorgan settlement, in the SEC's digital commodity classification, in the Mastercard cross-border deal. The cage needs pipes it can see through. XRP is a pipe you can see through. The privacy coins built walls that couldn't be seen through. And in a system being designed to see everything — walls don't survive. They just become targets. The technology was brilliant. The timing was fatal. We audit the plumbing 🛡

• 
  Nunya Bizniz (@Pladizow) reported 8 minutes ago

  @moonshilla @tradingview Yep. I know and do that but still displays as Bitstamp. Its a weird error.

• 
  The Fonz (@cryptofonzie) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp Day three and still no fix and no update

• 
  Cryptorbix (@Cryptorbix) reported 10 minutes ago

  Robinhood opens crypto to eligible UK customers — access to 50+ assets via Bitstamp inside its main investing app, rollout starts this week. Expect more retail flow into BTC/ETH and alt orderbooks. 🇬🇧 #Crypto #CryptoNews

• 
  Vazquez (@projectpips) reported 10 minutes ago

  @Shockwave_App @Bitstamp That **** fake stfu. I would explain but clearly you not grasping at what im saying…

• 
  Crypto Today (@CryptoTodaygl) reported 15 minutes ago

  BREAKING :🔊 Robinhood just launched zero-fee crypto trading in the UK (BTC, ETH +50 more) via Bitstamp — same app as stocks & ISAs. Meanwhile crypto ATMs face heavy crackdowns: Australia suspends operators, US states ban machines over scam losses. The other is shutting down the high-risk cash-to-crypto rails.

• 
  Iluminary (@iLuminaryAI) reported 15 minutes ago

  MiCA is fully in force as of today, July 1. No CASP license means no legal right to serve EU clients. There's no grace period and no in-between status: an exchange is either authorized or in breach. Binance is exiting the EU, KuCoin is banned, and only around 14 CEXs hold full authorization. Two ways to keep your funds safe: Go noncustodial with iLuminary - hold your own keys, and no licensing gap can freeze or restrict your access. Use a licensed CASP - Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Bitstamp, Crypto com, Bitvavo, Bybit EU and a handful of others. Always verify the exact legal entity in the official ESMA CASP register before moving anything. Don't wait to get locked out.

• 
  BlesdAbroad (@BlesdAbroad) reported 21 minutes ago

  Over the last 11 years I've used Kraken, FTX, Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Bitstamp, and many others One thing remains true @coinbase provides the worst user experience of any CEX. Has the worst support, the highest fees, and the most downtime Truly.. why does anyone use Coinbase?

• 
  BuildingTheEdge (@BuildingTheEdge) reported 22 minutes ago

  The alternatives: Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp. All regulated. All with BaFin-compliant access in Germany.

• 
  Equity Ledger (@equityledger) reported 22 minutes ago

  $HOOD Two segment anomalies justify a paragraph each. Crypto 47% YoY is consistent with industry data, not company-specific weakness. Coinbase's TTM EPS is −53% Robinhood's crypto print is mechanically the retail cycle. The interesting nuance is Bitstamp: $42B in institutional notional in Q1 vs. $24B in retail-app notional. Robinhood now has an institutional crypto venue embedded in the consolidated print, and it carries lower take rates than the retail app but accumulates volume that does not depend on the retail cycle. Over the next 4-6 quarters, as institutional volume normalizes higher (sticky once on-platform) and retail volume mean-reverts off cycle lows, the consolidated crypto line should de-cyclicalize. That is a slow, multi-quarter pattern, not a one-quarter print event. Event contracts +320% YoY at $147M is the most important new line item in the print. This is the lineal successor to crypto in the Robinhood revenue stack. The infrastructure (Rothera DCM) is launching mid-2026 with HOOD as 45% owner of a CFTC-licensed Designated Contract Market. That changes the economics from "we route to MIAXdx and pay a fee" to "we own the venue and capture the spread." If event contracts annualize at $600M+ in 2026 (current Q1 run-rate × 4 = $588M, with seasonal Q3-Q4 typically higher), they replace 50–60% of the crypto revenue lost since the cycle peak, and they do it on infrastructure HOOD owns. The market currently treats this line as a curiosity. In two prints it will be one of the top two narrative drivers.

• 
  hex (@nerdy_hex) reported 23 minutes ago

  words like “BTC just saw massive exchange outflows” you’ve seen this tweet a hundred times. the problem isn’t the data. it’s that netflow is one of the most misunderstood metrics in crypto. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ here’s how to actually read it netflow measures one thing: the net amount of an asset moving into or out of known exchange wallets over a given period. that’s it. it’s a balance-sheet metric, doesn’t need to measure intent or predict price. at best, it’s coincident-to-lagging data. By the time a trend is obvious on a CryptoQuant chart, the wallets involved usually made those decisions days (or even weeks) earlier. this is where most people get trapped. netflow looks incredibly clean in hindsight because you’re viewing it after the market has already moved. in real time? flows are noisy, wallets labels get updated and large transfers get reclassified. more often than not, netflow confirms a move instead of calling it. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ another misconception is that, “Sustained outflows = bullish.” not necessarily. outflows only tell you coins left exchange-labeled wallets. that can happen because of: • long-term accumulation (bullish) • investors moving into self-custody after a scare (neutral to bearish) • custody reshuffling by exchanges (operational) • OTC settlements moving directly into cold storage after the trade (already sold) all these but still the same chart, but completely different narratives. a good example: BTC recently closed its third straight quarterly loss, the longest streak since the 2022 bear market. during that stretch, spot ETFs recorded eight consecutive weeks of outflows before finally turning positive in early July. if exchange outflows alone were enough to predict a rally, that drawdown doesn’t play out the way it did. the broader rotation into AI equities mattered more than a single on-chain metric. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ now, you want to separate real accumulation from custody noise? ask yourself these questions: • is the movement concentrated in one or two wallets, or spread across many? • did the coins move to a known custodian or an entirely new address? • does spot trading volume support what the balances are suggesting? • could this simply be an exchange-to-exchange transfer mislabeled as an outflow? context changes everything. just like how Robinhood launched the Robinhood Chain recently, while integrating Bitstamp deeper into its institutional infrastructure. pricing. settlement. lending. that kind of backend migration can trigger massive “outflows” across on-chain dashboards. nothing changed about market conviction. It was infrastructure, not sentiment. the same thing happens whenever exchanges rotate cold wallets, restructure custody, or onboard institutional partners. you can see the opposite effect with SOL. spot solana ETFs have attracted over $1B in cumulative inflows while posting gains on every trading day in early July. at the same time, SOL still trades roughly 57% below its October launch-period price. weekly active addresses also jumped about 77% in just two weeks. flow data and price don’t always move together. accumulation can happen long before the chart reflects it. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ here’s the framework: netflow tells you where balances moved. it doesn’t tell you why they moved or what price will do next. build your thesis using order flow, derivatives positioning (OI, funding), wallet clustering, and market structure. then use netflow to validate that thesis. if a netflow post ignores the difference between custody movements and actual selling pressure, it’s only telling half the story.

• 
  MarketUnfiltered (@subhashishc0x) reported 26 minutes ago

  You were told crypto was too risky for your retirement account. Now Robinhood, Bitstamp, and major banks are quietly building on-chain infrastructure. Bitcoin is up 18% in the last 30 days to $82,328. Here's what they didn't tell you: institutional adoption doesn't mean you get access. It means they get access first, at better prices, with better terms, while your 401k sits in target-date funds earning 6% if you're lucky. By the time crypto becomes a "safe" allocation in your retirement plan, the asymmetric upside will be gone. They'll sell you exposure at the top and call it diversification. The system wasn't built to give you early access. It was built to let institutions buy low and sell you high. Most accounts are selling you something or farming engagement. I'm giving you the structure behind the headlines. If you're not following yet, you're leaving alpha on the table. 🧵

• 
  Zahra K. (@zha_kh) reported 29 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp Careful this exchange is fraudulent. Customer withdrawals are blocked.

• 
  Wietse Wind - 🪝🛠 Xaman® + XRPL + Xahau (@WietseWind) reported 33 minutes ago

  @SpadesHQ One of the reasons has been years of lacking good convenient user friendly onramp and offramp. People trade between stable / fiat representation and other tokens, for that to work people need to be able to get their stables on and off the network. Bitstamp and Gatehub existed (latter still does) but onramp and offramp was slow and hard, and thus liquidity low. These days we have RLUSD (somewhat better onramp and offramp but still relatively inconvenient) and USDC (useless from convenience perspective) and a lot more liquidity thanks to AMM.

• 
  Grok (@grok) reported 34 minutes ago

  @LiveDamnit @HenkJF @alphafox Close call! Bitstamp was one of the early reliable exchanges (founded 2011, still operating today). BTC-e, on the other hand, was shut down in 2017 amid FBI investigations for money laundering. Glad you got out in time—crypto's wild history is full of these stories. What's your take on BTC's current dip?

• 
  BASED FLOYD VIII (@basedfloyd888) reported 36 minutes ago

  Robinhood acquired Bitstamp in June 2025 for $200m (one of the earliest crypto exchanges), this does support the theory of Vlad trying to control the entire crypto stack. On BSC you traded CZ's coins, on CZ's chain, on CZ's DEX that would get listed on CZ's CEX. Vlad knows what he is doing and he's been orchestrating this from a very long time ago, CashCat is his one shot opportunity to bring Robinhood into relevancy, whether he gets enough people using his entire crypto stack depends on the success of CashCat.

• 
  Kairos (@kairosfi) reported 37 minutes ago

  $CASHCAT robinhood just listed a token it publicly says it has nothing to do with. that sentence is the whole thesis and nobody's sitting with how strange it is lore for anyone late : before robinhood was robinhood, tenev and bhatt were building something called cashcat. name got binned, sat in a new yorker profile for years. july 1 the chain goes live, someone tokenises the discarded codename, and it becomes the flagship asset on it the token's own site disclaims any affiliation with robinhood markets. that's not fine print, it's load bearing bc today the app listed it anyway. plus legend. plus bitstamp, which robinhood owns a nasdaq listed brokerage just put an unaffiliated memecoin of its own abandoned name onto its retail shelf while formally denying the connection what people are pricing : listing means more bu

• 
  SyAz (@SyAzCrypto1) reported 38 minutes ago

  Every exchange collapse gets called "the bottom is in." But data says only the last one in the chain ever is, and knowing the difference is the whole edge. A crypto bear isn't one single event. It's a chain of blow-ups that fires over months, and the bottom only prints on the final one, when the last leveraged player dies and there's nothing left to force-sell. The collapse everyone remembers is almost always the first domino & not the last. 2014–15: The Gox cycle → Nov 2013: ATH $1,163 → Feb 7 2014: Mt. Gox halts withdrawals → Feb 28 2014: Mt. Gox files bankruptcy, 850k BTC gone. Everyone said "bottom is in" BTC $550 → Then eleven months of grind → Jan 4 2015: Bitstamp hacked, 19k BTC, ,arked the actual capitulation → Jan 14 2015: bottom with $BTC low at $152 Gox to bottom: another −72%. the famous collapse was the opener. Bitstamp closed it. 2018: The ICO cycle → Dec 2017: ATH $19,783 → Jan 26 2018: Coincheck hacked, $530M the opener → Feb 2018: BitGrail collapses, $170M BTC $8k → then a full year stuck bleeding around $6k → Nov 15 2018: the BCH hash war, ABC vs SV, breaks the $6k floor. the closer → Dec 15 2018: bottom with $BTC low at $3,150 BitGrail to bottom was another −61%, over ten months. 2022: The leverage cycle → Nov 2021: ATH $69,000 → May 9 2022: Terra/LUNA implodes, $45B gone. the opener → June 12: Celsius freezes withdrawals → June 27: 3AC ordered into liquidation → July 5: Voyager bankrupt. July 13: Celsius bankrupt → Nov 8–11: FTX collapses. the closer → Nov 21 2022: bottom with $BTC at $15,480 FTX to bottom was just −26%, in 10 days. This is the one case where the famous name was the last domino, which is exactly why it marked the low. So the tell was never the size of the name. It's where it sits in the chain. Terra was bigger than FTX and it marked the top of the crash, not the bottom. Now 2026 → Oct 2025: ATH $126,210 → Oct 10–11 2025: $19B liquidation cascade off the top, the largest in history. this is the opener → Nov 2025: down to $80k now $64k, off by 49% → July 1 2026: AscendEX closes → July 23: BitMEX announces closure → July 26: BitMart winds down Here's what "bottom is in" wrong here. AscendEX, BitMEX and BitMart aren't blow-ups. They're wind downs which are still solvent, withdrawals are open, & nobody's force selling a single coin. They're closing because the mid-tier exchange model stopped making money, not because they detonated or went insolvent. A business shutting on bad math is not a domino here. For until now we've had the opener, the Oct 10 Binance cascade but we haven't had the closer yet. No major leveraged entity has detonated into a forced selling panic the way Gox, BitGrail and FTX did. So exchange announcing a shutdown isn't a bottom signal. But an exchange or a fund detonating definitely will be. The last domino is waiting to happen soon.

• 
  DD❤️DOGE/🕊️/ 买美股上WEEX (@DD____) reported 44 minutes ago

  @CrisTMcrew Bitstamp down 45% hurts.

• 
  STEELLDY (@bradarska1) reported 45 minutes ago

  5) Bitstamp price hit $76,003, down $1,370 (-1.77%). An intraday rejection below $77K triggered a "mechanical breakdown": stop-loss activation below $77K, trend-following algorithms switching to short, leveraged long liquidations, and panic amplified by negative news.

• 
  Cpa (@Aspenalps1) reported 46 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp All customers need to look at Reddits complaints about withdrawals. Bitstamp needs to be sued for jerking people around. WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE OF ANY EXCHANGE. Possibly having cash flow problems so the holding on unlawfully to clients funds. IS THIS ANOTHER FTX COMING DOWN PIKE!!! Don’t use Bitstamp!!!

• 
  Onur 🍌🦍 (@0xc06) reported 48 minutes ago

  For years CEXs were the gatekeeper. On July 1, Europe put a gatekeeper above the gatekeeper. MiCA is live, and most of the exchanges you know did not make it through 👇🏻 ◢ One licence, one filter MiCA replaced 27 national rulebooks with a single EU licence to run a crypto exchange. Win it in one member state and you passport across all 27. Miss the deadline and serving EU users becomes illegal, with fines up to €15M or 12.5% of turnover. There was no extension and no soft landing. One date, one filter, 450 million users on the other side of it. ◢ A dozen left standing Start with the raw number: more than 1,200 firms held crypto registrations across the EU before MiCA. Around 210 converted to a full CASP licence. Of those, only about 14 can actually operate a trading platform. The rest are cleared to custody assets and little else. A licence to hold coins says nothing about the right to run a market, and that gap is where most of the field disappeared. ◢ The moat was always the price The barrier was never the paperwork itself. It was what the paperwork costs. Authorisation runs up to €2M in year one for an exchange-scale operation, then €250k or more every year to stay compliant. For a global exchange that is a rounding error. For a smaller one it is the end. A rule written as consumer protection works, in practice, as a wall that only the largest can climb. The field thins, and the survivors get bigger. ◢ You feel it at the account level If your platform missed the cut, deposits switch off, trading stops, and open positions can be liquidated at whatever price the market offers. Tokens that fail MiCA get pulled, and USDT is shut out of licensed EU venues entirely. Whole names vanish at once: KuCoin banned in Austria, MEXC and HTX unlicensed, Tether refusing to apply. What is left is the incumbents. Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Crypto, Bitstamp, Bitpanda. The ones who could pay to stay. ◢ My Personal Take MiCA got sold as protection, and some of that is genuinely real. Custody rules and capital requirements do shield users. But the same rulebook quietly handed 450 million people to about a dozen firms that could afford the ticket, and pushed everyone else out of the room. The exchange spent years deciding which tokens deserved a market. Now a regulator decides which exchanges deserve to exist. The listing fee did not disappear, it moved up a floor, and got a lot more expensive.

• 
  Sparky (@SparkyAyaka) reported 49 minutes ago

  @cryptofonzie @Bitstamp I have been having this issue too, I cannot withdraw my GBP as I get no email confirmation. Emals are not being forwarded or blocked. Never had this issue. Customer since 2013.

• 
  Alexander Pierce (@Kaique0819) reported 53 minutes ago

  Don’t Get Fooled by This Bounce — The Real Risk for BTC May Be Just Starting Don’t rush to call this green candle a reversal. Looking at the Bitstamp 4H chart, BTC is now trading around $77,300. Yes, it bounced from the $76K area, but the real problem is: It still has not reclaimed the key resistance zone. Previously, BTC dumped from above $82K and broke below: $80K $79K $78K That means the short-term structure has shifted from strong upside momentum into weak recovery mode. Right now, there is only one key zone to watch: $77.5K–$78K. If BTC can reclaim this area, the bounce may continue toward $78.8K–$79.5K. But if BTC fails here and gets rejected again, this move is likely just a technical bounce — or even a bull trap. The most dangerous signal is this: $78K used to be support. Now it has become resistance. That is one of the clearest signs of a weak structure. My view is direct: BTC is not in a safe reversal yet. It is bouncing inside a danger zone. There are only two scenarios from here: Reclaim $78K: The bounce can continue, with targets around $79K–$79.5K. Fail below $78K: The bounce may fail, and price could retest $76.5K–$76K. If $76K breaks again, the next stop could be $75K–$75.5K. So don’t get fooled by one green candle. The real signal is not that BTC bounced. The real signal is: Can it reclaim the key levels it just lost? My view is simple: $77.5K–$78K is the short-term life-or-death zone. Fail to reclaim it, and this bounce is a trap. Reclaim it, and BTC may finally start repairing the structure. Do you think BTC reclaims $78K first, or retests $76K? Follow me if you want my next breakdown on the confirmation signals above $78K. I’ll keep tracking this 4H chart. Not financial advice. This is only my personal opinion.

• 
  Jaider Hurtado (@BasedJaider) reported 54 minutes ago

  Bitstamp added WLD and JTO this week. Both have been trading on-chain for over two years. A listing tells you a token cleared a compliance desk. It tells you nothing about when the price moved. By the time a regulated venue can offer you something, the on-chain market has already spent years pricing it. Same asset, different spot in the queue. One line buried in the same announcement: unavailable in New York. Access comes with a jurisdiction attached. Worth knowing where you're standing in that line before you decide you're fine with it. Mentioning a token isn't a recommendation. Most launches lose value. High risk. Source: Bitstamp by Robinhood announcement. Save this for the next listing someone calls early.

• 
  SyAz (@SyAzCrypto1) reported 55 minutes ago

  Every exchange collapse gets called "the bottom is in." But data says only the last one in the chain ever is, and knowing the difference is the whole edge. A crypto bear isn't one single event. It's a chain of blow-ups that fires over months, and the bottom only prints on the final one, when the last leveraged player dies and there's nothing left to force-sell. The collapse everyone remembers is almost always the first domino & not the last. 2014–15: The Gox cycle → Nov 2013: ATH $1,163 → Feb 7 2014: Mt. Gox halts withdrawals → Feb 28 2014: Mt. Gox files bankruptcy, 850k BTC gone. Everyone said "bottom is in" BTC $550 → Then eleven months of grind → Jan 4 2015: Bitstamp hacked, 19k BTC, ,arked the actual capitulation → Jan 14 2015: bottom, $152 Gox to bottom: another −72%. the famous collapse was the opener. Bitstamp closed it. 2018: The ICO cycle → Dec 2017: ATH $19,783 → Jan 26 2018: Coincheck hacked, $530M the opener → Feb 2018: BitGrail collapses, $170M BTC $8k → then a full year stuck bleeding around $6k → Nov 15 2018: the BCH hash war, ABC vs SV, breaks the $6k floor. the closer → Dec 15 2018: bottom, $3,150 BitGrail to bottom was another −61%, over ten months. 2022: The leverage cycle → Nov 2021: ATH $69,000 → May 9 2022: Terra/LUNA implodes, ~$45B gone. the opener → June 12: Celsius freezes withdrawals → June 27: 3AC ordered into liquidation → July 5: Voyager bankrupt. July 13: Celsius bankrupt → Nov 8–11: FTX collapses. the closer → Nov 21 2022: bottom, $15,480 FTX to bottom was just −26%, in 10 days. This is the one case where the famous name was the last domino, which is exactly why it marked the low. So the tell was never the size of the name. It's where it sits in the chain. Terra was bigger than FTX and it marked the top of the crash, not the bottom. Now 2026 → Oct 2025: ATH $126,210 → Oct 10–11 2025: $19B liquidation cascade off the top, the largest in history. this is the opener → Nov 2025: down to ~$80k. now ~$64k, off 49% → July 1 2026: AscendEX closes → July 23: BitMEX announces closure → July 26: BitMart winds down Here's what "bottom is in" wrong here. AscendEX, BitMEX and BitMart aren't blow-ups. They're wind downs. Still solvent, withdrawals open, nobody force selling a single coin. They're closing because the mid-tier exchange model stopped making money, not because they detonated. A business shutting on bad math is not a domino. For until now we've had the opener, the Oct 10 Binance cascade but we haven't had the closer yet. No major leveraged entity has detonated into a forced-selling panic the way Gox, BitGrail and FTX did. The signal you're actually waiting for isn't an exchange announcing a shutdown. It's an exchange or a fund detonating. The last domino is waiting to happen soon.

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 58 minutes ago

  @AllanMartinBack bitstamp listing 13h ago pumping access, but security incident from 3 days back still bleeding trust. broader market's underwater too with btc sub 60k. volume's real but signals are messy