Dropbox status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Dropbox 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.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Dropbox users through our website.

• Errors (60%)
• Sign in (20%)
• Website Down (20%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Dropbox outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nottingham	Errors	16 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	16 days ago
Flumet	Errors	26 days ago
Irapuato	Errors	28 days ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	3 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	4 months ago

Full Outage Map

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.

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Juan Pabro (@ironwoodreserve) reported 5 minutes ago

  @BitPaine @Dropbox Is now the worse time to try to login? I was a sent 2FN right as I was getting ready to click on what to use to login. It seemed way too fast for 2FN.

• 
  grey (@w3b3grey) reported 10 minutes ago

  If you are like me and you wondering, where my IDENTITY PEM FILE is on @flop_labs , I gat you; here is how to find it identity.pem is already saved automatically; the init command writes it to your project folder the moment you run it (typically right in technocore-did-starter/identity.pem). You don't need to do anything extra for it to exist. What "saving" really means here is backing it up safely, since if this file is lost, your DID is unrecoverable (the guide's troubleshooting table says exactly that: "there is no central DID recovery service"). 1. Confirm it's there ls -la ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem 2. Back it up to a second location — copy it somewhere other than the working folder, e.g. an external encrypted drive or a password manager that supports file attachments (1Password, Bitwarden both do this): cp ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem ~/Desktop/identity-backup.pem Then move that copy off your main disk (external drive, encrypted USB, etc.) rather than leaving a second copy sitting in ~/Desktop long-term. 3. Lock down file permissions so only your user account can read it: chmod 600 ~/technocore-did-starter/identity.pem 4. What NOT to do with it Don't upload it to GitHub, Google Drive, iCloud Drive, Dropbox, or any synced/cloud folder in plaintext. Don't email it to yourself or paste it into a chat (including this one). Don't commit it to *** , the guide's Path B steps even have you run *** ls-files "*.pem" "*.key" before committing specifically to catch this. 5. Remember the passphrase separately from the file The .pem is encrypted, but it's useless without the passphrase you set during init. Store that passphrase somewhere separate from the .pem backup itself (a password manager entry, not a text file sitting next to the key), so a single leaked backup doesn't hand over both pieces at once. NOTE - If you lose either the file or the passphrase, per the guide, there's no recovery; you'd have to run init again and get a brand new DID.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 12 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport ive tried mircosoft edge but problem is stil present... do you think i might have been hacked or had bad file ?

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 12 minutes ago

  community is not a Slack channel. I've been building communities for 15 years across Zynga, Dropbox, Wix, Persona, and my own project Edublin. And the biggest misconception I still hear is: "we launched a Slack, so we have a community." You don't. Slack, Discord, forums, Circle... those are all tools. Community is what happens when people trust each other enough to be honest. I've seen companies spend six figures on community platforms and end up with a ghost town. I've also seen a group chat of 12 people generate more value than a 10,000 person Slack. The difference is the architecture: who's in the room, how they got there, what the norms are, and whether people feel safe enough to say what they actually think. At Dropbox, we had 400 million users. The "community" wasn't a platform, it was the trust between power users who helped each other solve problems the support docs couldn't. They needed to know they were talking to someone who understood their situation. At Wix, I built an 80K partner community. The platform was secondary. What mattered was that web designers felt seen by a company that historically marketed to DIY users. The community was the signal that Wix took professionals seriously. Edublin started as a blog answering questions for Brazilian expats moving to Ireland, with no dedicated platform or app. It became the largest community of its kind because the trust was real. People showed up because they knew they'd get an honest answer. Community is trust. Community is the reason someone comes back. Every time I evaluate whether a community is working, I ask one thing: would these people show up even if the tool disappeared? If yes, you have something real. If not, you have a group chat.

• 
  Fraser (@iamfra5er) reported 14 minutes ago

  THIS GUY WANTED A PLACE TO STORE HIS PASSPORT WITHOUT DROPBOX READING IT so he built an encrypted vault app for himself in a weekend and it's now doing $5k/mo zero startup cost. 85% margins. no ads. just SEO written by an AI agent trained on his emails the agent finds trending topics on reddit every single day, writes an article, translates it, posts it google indexes it in days. 500-600 daily visitors. 4% convert to app store downloads. all running on free cloudflare then ASO does the rest — he translated the app into 36 languages and ranks #1 for "duress vault" in the US app store 80 downloads a day. 9% conversion to paid. completely autonomous most founders obsess over their first 10 customers but this guy got banned from every reddit community and said whatever, I'll just let the robot handle distribution he's an ex-google security engineer who raised hundreds of millions for his last startup so he knows what terrible UX looks like in security apps every competitor either has bulletproof security with unusable UI or easy UI with trash security he just combined both and called it done doesn't even spend time on this app. works on 4 projects at once. lets coding agents build while he plans the MVP is identical to the final product because he built exactly what he wanted for himself no pivot. no customer discovery calls. just "I need this, maybe 10 other people do too" now he's testing tiktok and youtube not even for this app but just to learn distribution for the next one

• 
  Guymon Adams (@guymonadams) reported 14 minutes ago

  @BrianRoemmele Man, this seems to be a recurring problem for Dropbox. I remember a similar story several years back about their own employees browsing thru user files. All the reasons I moved over to Sync, a much more secure and respectable alternative.

• 
  Craylor (@craylor) reported 16 minutes ago

  Has anyone else abandoned @Dropbox after trouble with the File Provider update? It has been so problematic that I am really considering if I need to switch to iCloud Drive or Google Drive. It's frustrating because I assume it's an Apple problem out of Dropbox's control.

• 
  Tim Geisendoerfer (@djgeisi) reported 18 minutes ago

  @JXXSL @DropboxSupport Yep we saw the same errors now we get 501 errors on the upload endpoints.

• 
  IRIS C2 (@C2IRIS) reported 18 minutes ago

  Do you remember those cloud storage services that would be like 1/10th the price of Google or Dropbox, but the catch was that you couldn’t pull your data down that often? So their arb was basically on the bandwidth cost savings I found that none of them ever worked well Raw video files would always come back corrupted

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 20 minutes ago

  System design question. How would you design Dropbox file sync with conflict handling? Constraints to make it real: 1) Clients are offline for days, then reconnect over flaky networks. Upload is resumable and idempotent. 2) Same file edited on 2 devices before either syncs. You need deterministic conflict detection (hash + version vector/etag?) and a UX for duplicates. 3) Renames/moves vs edits: preserve history and avoid treating rename as delete+upload. 4) Large files (2–10GB) need chunking, dedupe, and partial re-upload (content-defined chunking vs fixed). 5) Consistency: per-file ordering vs global ordering. What is the conflict scope and how do you prevent flip-flopping? 6) Server state: metadata store vs blob store, retention for old versions, and how you garbage collect orphaned chunks 7) Security: encryption at rest, per-user keys, and how sharing folders changes trust boundaries

• 
  Lisa (@aikens_lisa) reported 20 minutes ago

  @TaiyoDevil I printed out fics before I had an e-reader called Dropbox. I was there when Tumblr fell. I had to scrape fan sites and the half-good alternatives to get my fix! AO3 is the best thing to happen to fandom. And you can put pictures on them!

• 
  하레 (@ascoeur9) reported 23 minutes ago

  I also experienced the same issue two months ago and reported it, but no action has been taken. In the end, I started syncing all the folders with Dropbox.

• 
  JP Invests (@JP_Invests) reported 26 minutes ago

  $DBX - Dropbox added 96,000 paying users this quarter. I said this morning to watch that line after last quarter's roughly 14,000 sequential adds. They did seven times that, a third consecutive quarter of growth, to 18.19M. The stock is down 4%. Everything I said to watch on the growth side came in fine. Revenue $631.5M, above both the $624-627M guide and the $627M street. Non-GAAP EPS $0.75 against $0.74. Non-GAAP operating margin 39.7%, above the full-year range. ARPU $139.68, up from $138.32. What went the wrong way is the part I said would actually move it. Free cash flow fell to $235.2M from $258.5M a year ago, and the margin went from 41.3% to 37.2%. And the buyback decelerated: $330M this quarter against $410M in the same quarter last year, with first-half repurchases down 19%. Unlevered free cash flow rose to $283.5M, and the gap between the two numbers is interest. Cash paid for interest went to $48.3M from $17.9M. The buyback is debt-funded and the debt now costs something. Diluted share count is down 18% year over year to 226.8M, which is the one thing still working mechanically. Two things about the release itself. Guidance isn't in it — Dropbox moved the numbers to supplemental materials on its investor site this quarter, which breaks with how it has reported. And the entire release is quoted by a co-CEO who writes "stepping into this role." The 8-K contains no disclosure of a leadership change. Twenty-nine percent of the float is short. $DBX

• 
  Xavier Rivera (@XavierRiveraX) reported 27 minutes ago

  Dropbox confirms roughly 5,000 accounts were accessed between August 4-21 after attackers exploited a flaw in Lenovo's email verification. Attackers registered fraudulent Lenovo IDs using victims' emails, and Dropbox's SSO trusted that without confirming it against the real account, letting them in with no password. A federated login is only as strong as the weakest identity provider behind it.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 29 minutes ago

  Replication has become much easier in the era of generative AI. I'm not the first person to say that. However, I've seen fewer people acknowledge a specific aspect of this lowered cost for replicating scientific work: Generative AI will very soon allow us to assess the robustness of individual scholars' full bodies of work. Soon, we will be to compute measures of which scholars do robust science, and which do not. What's wild is that we may be able to almost do that already. Let me show you what I mean. In June, I gave Claude a pretty basic prompt. It read: "I have a big task for you. I want you to start a folder. Call it Acemoglu Replications. Then, go find as many replication archives for Daron Acemoglu as you can. Keep a spreadsheet of the ones you can find and those you can't. Then, start a replication/reproduction effort on those articles. People have in the past criticized the research designs and general robustness of his individual papers. I want to know how strong his body of work is as a whole. Don't come in with any prior beliefs; be dispassionate." I let Claude run overnight while I slept. When I came back in the morning, 29 of Acemoglu's replication archives were fully loaded in my Dropbox. All the code reproducing the paper's results had run. And there was a first draft of a paper assessing the robustness of Acemoglu's full body of empirical work. I'll admit, the first draft of the paper wasn't great. But with 15 short follow up messages--which took me about an hour to write--I was able to prompt engineer a paper-length examination of Acemoglu's work. I've attached the screen shot of the abstract below. I think this reassessment of Acemoglu's work is certainly not done. I'm posting the abstract as a proof of concept, rather than a definitive answer. I'm not posting the full paper yet because I think it still needs more work. Ultimately, I paused this project for three reasons. 1.) Limited time/topical expertise: Most of Acemoglu's work is outside of my area of topical expertise. So, I have limited time to work on it. What this type of a project really needs is someone who has the time and the know-how to dig into each of the replication's individually to make sure they are doing the right things. I think the ideal approach combines the breadth that LLMs afford and the depth of attention/expertise that humans can give. 2.) Questions about the value of the "assess one scholar at a time" enterprise: I totally get that having a database of scholar-level robustness metrics would be very valuable in theory. But what I don't know is whether this approach is truly valuable. Moreover, doing so would come with distinct challenges. a.) Many journals have very restrictive space constraints. A body of work approach would, of necessity, be very long. b.) Collecting replication archives is harder for some types of scholars (those who post them all on their websites) than others (those who don't). c.) We'd have to think hard about questions like: what scholar-specific robustness metrics would be best? And: how would we deal with the fact that prolific authors' robustness metrics would be estimated much more precisely than less prolific scholars? Additionally, I'm just not sure that "taking on" one scholar at a time has enough scientific merit to pursue. If I measured how robust an individual scholars' work is, I'd ideally want to know where that metric stands vis-a-vis the rest of scholars in that field/area. To do that, we'd ideally want the population of these scholars or, at minimum, a random sample. Concretely, if Acemoglu has, say, 78% of published headline results reproducible under some standardized protocol, is that excellent, mediocre, or terrible? To answer that, you need a reference distribution. That makes a random or otherwise well-defined sample of scholars much more attractive than selecting prominent individuals one by one. (I'll acknowledge that I may just be wrong on #2. Arguing against myself, I do agree that human-driven reproduction/replication work rarely assesses full/representative slices of a field. Instead of assessing one scholar at a time, we assess one paper at a time. Field-wide detective work is becoming more common, but my sense is that it's still the exception rather than the rule.) 3.) Cost/benefit considerations and replication norms: we have very weakly formed norms around reproduction/replication generally speaking. We have basically no developed norms around replicating individual authors one at a time. What this means is that the people who would lead a scholar-by-scholar replication effort will, likely, bear a heavy cost and, potentially, reap limited benefits. On the costs side, focusing on scholars' total bodies of work risks making the replicators look petty, vindictive, and antisocial. Enough of the scientific field is hostile towards replications of individual papers. Imagine what will happen if/when a scholar submits a scholar-specific "take down" of a full body of work. My sense is that it's common enough for scholars having their work replicated to be asked to be a reviewer for those manuscripts. I've seen very hostile responses when one paper is at issue. Imagine what type of reviewer Acemoglu would be for a paper that took on his entire body of empirical work! Even if Acemoglu weren't a reviewer, prolific authors tend to have wide coauthor/friend networks. The rally-around-my-friend dynamic we often see would certainly work against this type of paper being published. Even a completely neutral analysis acquires an accusatory character simply because the sampling unit is a named person. And that creates an unfortunate problem of its own: readers may interpret the choice of scholar as evidence that the investigators expected to find something. On the benefits side, replicating individual scholars' total body of work may offer limited payoffs. What journals would accept this type of scholar-specific replication? I'm not sure the top ones would. Conclusion: Generative AI has enormous potential in assessing and, ultimately, enhancing the robustness of scientific research. Instead of asking questions like, “does this famous individual paper replicate?”, we can begin asking questions like: -“What proportion of published empirical findings in [field X] survive a common robustness protocol?” -“How much of the variation in replicability is attributable to papers, authors, journals, methods, or subfields?” -“Are scholars persistently more or less robust across their work?” -“Can we predict which findings will prove fragile?” I may just be wrong on what I think about a one-at-a-time full body examination of scientific research. If I am, please let me know! I am also happy to chat one-on-one with anyone who is curious to learn more about the early-stage Acemoglu-specific replication project.

• 
  Llama (@thellama451) reported 30 minutes ago

  I tracked down these messages in @MaxMillerOH’s Dropbox files. They show the parents getting along with no major conflicts beforehand. If Miller said he was going to kill his ex-wife in front of child (likely), it shows a talent for masking rage and hostility.

• 
  ericleebristol (@iamericbristol) reported 34 minutes ago

  Email scams but they also use a press cloud server that can hold up to millions of emails and send out messages in a bulk but to hundreds of people complicated when it comes to taking down email scams cuz you have to find where they coming from answer in a cloud compressed server that can hold up to millions of emails frequently combine compressed attachments (like ZIP, RAR, 7Z, or TGZ files) with cloud storage or servers to deliver malware, phishing pages, or credential-stealing links while trying to bypass security filters. Common patterns 🚩Malware in compressed attachments: Attackers send emails with ZIP or similar archives containing executables, scripts (VBS/JS), or disguised files. Some use specially crafted or nested ZIPs, password-protected archives (password given in the email body), or less-common formats that email gateways may not fully unpack or scan. Opening/extracting the archive can install remote-access tools, stealers, or ransomware. Cloud storage phishing (“storage is full” or similar alerts): Emails impersonate Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, Dropbox, or generic “Cloud Storage” services. They claim storage is full, a payment failed, or files will be deleted, creating urgency. Links often point to real cloud infrastructure (e.g., Google Cloud Storage Azure Blob, or other legitimate buckets) that host redirect pages or fake login/upgrade forms. This makes the links look trustworthy and helps them pass filters🚩.

• 
  Invest Like the Best (@InvestLikeBest) reported 36 minutes ago

  Ben Thompson's two laws of consumer tech: 1) Consumers do not want to pay for software 2) Consumers do not care about being productive. "We went through this in early SaaS. The canonical company for this is Dropbox. They had to rebuild the whole thing and realize the only way we're going to make money is by selling to companies. You literally had OpenAI replaying the Dropbox story, but at like 100x the size. We're going to sell subscriptions to consumers. And they did. They sold a lot, but they didn't sell enough. If you're going to be in the consumer market, you have to be doing advertising. If they had leaned into advertising immediately, as soon as ChatGPT was a hit, I think they would have a great ad product right now. I think Google would be in much bigger trouble. I think Meta would be in much bigger trouble. Charging people money is hard. Giving people things for free is easy. And it's very frustrating that OpenAI did not pursue this sooner."

• 
  Shadow_Vortex_2025 (@Shad0wV0rtex) reported 41 minutes ago

  @FrancoisOlwage @bot I ran into a similar issue just trying to connect Dropbox, ClickUp, and Google Sheets, and all my tokens were already gone.

• 
  DAX : TV (@daxtv) reported 44 minutes ago

  @0x00_dev @ProtonMail have been using dropbox for years- never an issue - thought it might be smart to move to Proton Drive - but not now me thinks - hey ho :)

• 
  Ishita Sethi (@Ishita__Sethi) reported 44 minutes ago

  @LoganOpSec that dropbox bit is the part that sticks. recovery without revoking access is just half a fix.

• 
  Jens Kristensen (@JensKri20101733) reported 45 minutes ago

  Suggestion for @adamhfry, ChatGPT Consumer Product Lead: The new Google Drive integration made me wonder: why not take the same idea one step further and support local Windows files directly? No Google Drive. No OneDrive. Local storage, controlled ChatGPT access. A file should not have to be stored in the cloud at all. Cloud has done enough damage already. Cloud = Hell. There is an important distinction between cloud computing and cloud storage. Cloud computing means that ChatGPT performs the processing on OpenAI’s servers. Cloud storage means that documents are permanently stored with Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, or another cloud provider. The first may be a practical consequence of ChatGPT’s current architecture. The second is not. A much cleaner model would be: Local disk / NAS → temporary, explicitly authorized ChatGPT access → processing → result returned to local disk / NAS. For example, a user could right-click: G:\Project\Analysis.docx and select “Open with ChatGPT”. ChatGPT would then receive controlled access to that file — or perhaps to a user-authorized folder such as: G:\ChatGPT\ The user could specify whether access should be read-only or read/write. Original files could be protected, and output could automatically be written to a designated local \output folder. Then instructions could be as simple as: “Edit only section 17. Preserve all formatting.” “Analyze all documents in G:\ChatGPT\Project X.” “Compare these three PDFs.” “Edit Analysis.docx, but do not modify the original. Save the result in \output.” DOCX, XLSX and PPTX are not fundamentally unsuitable for this. They are largely ZIP containers containing XML files. The harder problem is preserving complex formatting, images, tables, comments, undo/versioning and accurate rendering. A local “ChatGPT File Bridge” for Windows could solve the access problem without requiring users to move their working files into Google Drive or OneDrive. The AI processing itself would not necessarily be local. Files, or the relevant parts of them, could still be transmitted to OpenAI for processing. But storage and file management could remain entirely local: local file → controlled ChatGPT access → processing → result back to local disk / NAS. No Google Drive. No OneDrive. No permanent cloud storage. No manual upload/download cycle. The user retains control over the file structure, filenames, versions, backups, applications and physical storage location. “Google Docs inside ChatGPT” is technically interesting. But “Local Files inside ChatGPT” would be the real game changer for the traditional Windows PC workflow. And OpenAI would not need to invent another file system. Windows already has a perfectly good one.

• 
  Eric Smith (@Eric_Smith08) reported 46 minutes ago

  The uncomfortable truth. Google and Microsoft have spent the last decade building the two most complete free productivity ecosystems in history. Word processing. Spreadsheets. Presentations. Email. Cloud storage. Video calls. Notes. Tasks. Projects. Forms. Websites. AI. Messaging. Calendar. PDF tools. Every category. Both companies. Free. And yet the average knowledge worker pays $80-$150/month for third-party apps that duplicate what these ecosystems already provide because Google markets Gmail and Microsoft markets Word, and neither company tells you about the other 28 tools sitting behind the same login. That’s not an accident. Google doesn’t make money when you use Google Keep. They make money when you use Gmail and Keep keeps you in Gmail longer. Microsoft doesn’t make money when you use To Do for free. They make money when your company sees you using To Do and buys Microsoft 365 Business for the entire organization. The free tools are loss leaders. They exist to acquire users, not to generate revenue. And because they’re loss leaders, neither company promotes them aggressively. You don’t see Google Keep on a billboard. You don’t see Microsoft Planner in a Super Bowl ad. The free tools are invisible by design because the business model works whether you find them or not. Meanwhile, 9 separate companies Notion, Zoom, Dropbox, Slack, Todoist, Grammarly, Adobe, Trello, and OpenAI charge you monthly for products that are often inferior versions of what Google and Microsoft give away. They survive because the free alternatives are invisible. Their entire business model depends on you not knowing that two companies already built what they’re selling. “You have two accounts. You’ve had them for years. Between them, they contain every productivity tool you need free. You’ve been paying $1,644/year for 9 apps that duplicate what your Gmail login and your Microsoft login already provide. The tools were never hidden. They were just never advertised. And 9 companies have been billing you monthly hoping they never would be.” One weekend. 9 apps canceled. $1,644/year back. The accounts were always free. The tools were always there. You just never opened them.

• 
  FarhanX_AI (@FarhanBuildsAI) reported 51 minutes ago

  SETTING #1: Startup Apps Nobody Asked For What it does: Every time you install a new program, it quietly adds itself to a list of apps that launch the second Windows boots, whether you use it daily or once a year. Why it kills performance: Your laptop isn't just starting Windows when you power it on. It's simultaneously launching Spotify, Steam, Adobe updaters, Dropbox, Zoom, and a dozen other programs all fighting for the same limited CPU and RAM at once. How to fix it: Ctrl + Shift + Esc to open Task Manager → Startup apps tab. Disable everything except your antivirus and anything you genuinely open every single day. The technician found 19 apps launching automatically on her laptop. She recognized maybe 6 of them.

• 
  Synapse Brief (@Synapse_Brief) reported 52 minutes ago

  @gdb Scraping 7 consecutive years of tax forms and equity statements across Dropbox and Shareworks requires orchestrating dozens of DOM interactions without dropping session state. Standard visual tool-calling loops degrade quickly once context windows swell from repeated full-page DOM trees and screenshot tokens across nested subfolders. The underlying issue with multi-year document extraction is not simple folder traversal, but error recovery when dynamic OAuth tokens expire mid-sweep. Navigating nested web UI trees for 2016 through 2025 records usually hits rate limits or modal overlays that cause visual grounding agents to hallucinate click coordinates. Production reliability on complex immigration workflows will require hybrid execution models that compile raw browser actions into structured API calls or deterministic scripts after initial path discovery. Until agents decouple stateful file fetching from reactive visual vision loops, edge-case recovery will remain the bottleneck for zero-touch filings.

• 
  David Silva Smith (@DavidSilvaSmith) reported 53 minutes ago

  Got dropbox, ickoud, google drive working last night. Looking at @immichapp for photos…. Home server… hosted server…. Hmmmm

• 
  og bec (@becca_may33) reported 54 minutes ago

  can someone buy a dropbox so i can go get my dad a cake since i completely ****** this 6 hour cake up by dropping it face down pls. begging lmfao fml

• 
  Tom Alder (@tomaldertweets) reported 57 minutes ago

  In 2009, Dropbox founder Drew Houston took a meeting at Apple HQ thinking it was about a partnership. Steve Jobs opened with an offer to buy his company. Houston, still in his 20s, turned down 9 figures on the spot. Jobs pushed back with a warning: "You're a feature, not a product." If they wouldn't sell, Apple would build a direct competitor themselves. They wouldn't sell. Apple shipped iCloud. A phenomenally successful product, but it didn't kill Dropbox. Dropbox had quietly built the best customer acquisition loop in software history: → Give a friend an invite, you both get free storage. When Apple made the acquisition offer, Dropbox had around 2 million users. By January 2010, 4 million users. By April 2010, users were sending 2.8 million invites a month. 1 every single second. Dropbox's growth curve went ballistic after the Apple discussion: → 50m users by 2011 → 100m users by 2012 → 500m users by 2016 In 2017 they became the fastest software company in history to reach $1 billion ARR. Today: 700m+ registered users and $2.5b a year in revenue - sitting a fraction behind 850 million+ iCloud users. - 🎁 P.S. I turned Dropbox's referral playbook into a free guide - comment "Dropbox" and I'll send it to you.

• 
  kayden (@codependentyaoi) reported 60 minutes ago

  @unprojection i think the issue was the site i was uploading my art to to link on ao3, i was using dropbox and it wouldn't link and then i saw some ppl on reddit say dropbox didnt work for them either, but i was able to find another website thankfully :]

• 
  21Rates (@21RatesHQ) reported 1 hour ago

  Bitcoin security isn't optional anymore. It's survival. The last few weeks: → Dropbox got hacked → Byte Federal (US Bitcoin ATM operator) had attackers target data on 58,000 customers, names, addresses, SSNs → A Trezor supplier leaked customer address data → The LA City Attorney's Office lost 7.7 TB of data, including police records → Coldcard found a flaw in its seed generation that could let attackers steal funds This isn't a string of bad luck. It's the new normal. KYC makes full privacy impossible in most places. But you still control part of your attack surface. Simple moves that actually help: • Use email aliases, a unique address per service • Same with phone numbers where you can • Treat every unexpected email, call, or text as hostile until proven otherwise Attackers combine data from multiple leaks to build your profile. The more your identifiers overlap across services, the easier that is. You don't need to be a victim first to start taking this seriously. What's one step you're taking this week to lock things down?