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:

• 
  Tutsi Andre (@tutsiandre) reported 4 minutes ago

  Hey @bitfinex I've been a verified customer for many years, now you are blocking my withdrawals?

• 
  Ricardo Martinez (@ricardoXMR) reported 6 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

• 
  Brutal Crypto Brief (@BrutalDegenX) reported 7 minutes ago

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

• 
  Kathlyn Tuccillo (@KathlynTuc77441) reported 8 minutes ago

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

• 
  Strategy Trader (@strategytraderE) reported 13 minutes ago

  @Karman_1s BNB support fails but Bitfinex BTC longs grow, alt weakness, not isolated crash.

• 
  Ajay Khosla (@Kenny_Khosla) reported 17 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.

• 
  Bittopia (@Bittopia_) reported 18 minutes ago

  🧱 155,000 $BTC HAVE FORMED A NEW COST-BASIS CLUSTER Bitfinex reported that roughly 155,000 BTC moved into the $62K–$65K cost-basis range during the latest pullback. The zone represents about 0.7% of circulating supply and became the market’s largest onchain cost-basis concentration. Why it matters: A growing cluster during a decline can indicate that buyers absorbed supply instead of holders exiting broadly. But it is not automatic support. If price revisits the range, those holders can defend their entry, hold through volatility or become potential sellers. The signal is also mixed with thinner spot volume, a $61.5M weekly outflow from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs and defensive options positioning. Accumulation data explains positioning. It does not guarantee direction. Disclaimer: Onchain cost-basis models use estimates and should not be treated as precise trading signals. @bitfinex | $BTC #Bitcoin #OnchainData #CryptoMarkets

• 
  Filzahanis (@bloom_pegnmk6) reported 19 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

• 
  Rahul K (@iamrahulinc) reported 23 minutes ago

  🚨𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗘 𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗭𝗘𝗦 𝟮𝟱 𝗟𝗜𝗕𝗥𝗔‑𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗦! Federal judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi ordered the seizure of 25 crypto wallets linked to the LIBRA investigation. He instructed Binance, Bybit, OKX, CoinEx, FixedFloat and Bitfinex to provide user KYC, IP login data, associated bank accounts and complete transaction histories. Police report that the money flowed from “Team Libra Wallets” across several blockchains and centralized exchanges, using split transfers to mask its path. $BTC

• 
  Cosimo Capiτal ⚜️ (@CosimoCapital) reported 26 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.

• 
  The Block (@TheBlockCo) reported 27 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.

• 
  Urban Hacker (@realUrbanHacker) reported 31 minutes ago

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

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 31 minutes ago

  Crypto Fear & Greed Index: 16/100 — “extreme fear.” Bitcoin bitcoin:native briefly broke $60K last week — worst stretch since FTX collapse in 2022. Now rebounding to $63,800. But Bitfinex warns: “Rallies are increasingly being sold rather than accumulated.” The structural problem hasn’t changed. Macro is restrictive. Rates are going higher. Bitcoin is a risk-on asset in a risk-off environment. 💰 YOUR MOVE: The $63,800 bounce is a relief rally, not a reversal. For the trend to change you need two things: Strait of Hormuz reopens (oil down, inflation pressure eases, Fed pause) or SpaceX IPO capital returns to crypto after the excitement fades. Neither is happening this week. If you’re long crypto, set a stop at $58,000. If you’re waiting to buy the dip — the structural floor is $52,000, not $60,000. @Blackintus

• 
  Thomas (@ThomasOyxxx) reported 34 minutes ago

  𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐞. Culture isn’t designed. It’s discovered, usually by accident. A toy photo, a broken render, a nickname that stuck. That’s how $FEFER was born. Not from a whitepaper, not from a marketing plan. From CT deciding a jaw that never loaded was funnier than anything a team could have scripted. ➜ First launch failed ➜ Team stepped back ➜ Community didn’t That sequence matters more than people give it credit for. Most memes die the moment the original push loses steam. Fefer got a second life because the people holding it treated the token like it was worth continuing, not restarting. ➜ Relaunched on @coinsdot + @Stable ➜ Snapshot of 4,827 original holders ➜ Airdropped directly, no claim forms, nobody left behind That’s not a small detail. Snapshotting the original holders instead of starting a fresh cap table is the difference between “new project borrowing an old joke” and “same community, new chapter.” Where it stands right now: ➜ $3.9M market cap ➜ $569K liquidity ➜ Live on a USDT-powered L1 backed by Bitfinex and PayPal Ventures Stable is still early. Its identity is still being written in real time, and the projects active in it now are the ones that end up shaping what people associate with the chain later. $FEFER isn’t trying to win on utility. It’s trying to win on being unforgettable, and a meme that survives its own failed launch and still gets airdropped back to the exact people who believed in it the first time is hard to forget. Nobody decides which meme becomes the face of a chain. The timeline does. 👀 Fefer didn’t restart. Fefer continued. CA: 0xDEeE8f25fe3B5C33AeF78637278ACBFF23EeBFa6 Always DYOR and verify the contract before interacting. @savefefer

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 38 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]

• 
  DA₿OLOSKOV (@daboloskov) reported 44 minutes ago

  @BFXSecurities @paoloardoino @bitfinex Are you guys can answer to your customer? Your support form certificate is no signed anymore and outdated.

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 45 minutes ago

  @bitfinex AVOID BITFINEX ! stealing customer money !!

• 
  Coinlive (@CoinliveHQ) reported 48 minutes ago

  Bitfinex Securities has listed five tokenized notes giving eligible non-US investors economic exposure to Strategy, STRC, Metaplanet, H100 Group and Capital B. They trade against USD, USDT and Bitcoin, with fractional access from about $1.

• 
  Octopus (@Octop3s) reported 50 minutes ago

  every BIT exchange is shutting down. never see a world where Bitfinex would ever shut down. there’s just too much money in the reserves.

• 
  2weed 🇵🇸 (@TAUHEED5) reported 51 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Wtf is bitfinex whale

• 
  Colbert (@sirshibaninja) reported 53 minutes ago

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

• 
  Whistleblower (@whistleblowerTA) reported 53 minutes ago

  Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer in the crypto industry, currently has a market capitalization of around $184 billion. According to publicly available data, it was the 7th-largest net buyer of U.S. Treasury bills in 2024 and is on track to become one of the top 10 purchasers of U.S. T-bills in 2026. Tether's demand for Treasury bills helps finance U.S. government debt. What's surprising is that Tether has existed for 14 years, yet it still has not published a full independent audit proving that all USDT tokens are fully backed by reserves. But in March 2026, Tether engaged KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, to conduct its first full independent financial statement audit covering USDT reserves and the company's financials. KPMG is not infallible, no auditor is. However, it is generally considered far more credible than smaller accounting firms. There have also been notable audit failures involving KPMG, including: - Wirecard (Germany, 2020): KPMG was involved in reviewing a company that later collapsed after a €1.9 billion accounting fraud was uncovered. - Carillion (UK, 2018): KPMG faced criticism over its audit work before the construction giant went bankrupt. - KPMG has also faced regulatory fines from authorities such as the U.S. SEC and the UK's FCA over deficiencies in certain audits. Although KPMG's involvement could significantly strengthen confidence in Tether, it should not be viewed as proof of perfection. For years, Tether changed statements on its own website, including earlier claims that every USDT token was fully backed by U.S. dollars. Tether is also closely connected to the Bitfinex exchange, with both companies sharing common ownership. In 2018, Tether arranged a "verification" by Friedman LLP. The day before the verification, Bitfinex transferred approximately $382 million to Tether's bank account to demonstrate reserves, and the funds were moved out shortly afterward. These events were later confirmed during investigations by the New York Attorney General (NYAG) and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which resulted in regulatory fines. Tether and Bitfinex ultimately paid $18.5 million and $41 million in fines, respectively, related to misleading statements about reserve backing and other regulatory violations. Tether also faces significant regulatory pressure in the European Union and has not obtained authorization under the MiCA regulatory framework, leading to restrictions on its availability in parts of the EU. Tether remains one of the most controversial companies in the cryptocurrency industry, yet it also plays a crucial role in providing liquidity across the crypto market.

• 
  DMT-NAT 小果果（晨曦） (@nat_xgg2288) reported 54 minutes ago

  @fiatarchive Remaining BTC Supply Projection April 2026 Remaining: 984,370 coins (Block reward per block: 3.125 BTC) April 2027 Remaining: 820,310 coins (Block reward per block: 3.125 BTC) April 2028 Remaining: 656,250 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2029 Remaining: 574,210 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2030 Remaining: 492,180 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2031 Remaining: 410,150 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2032 Remaining: 328,120 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2033 Remaining: 287,100 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2034 Remaining: 246,090 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2035 Remaining: 205,070 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2036 Remaining: 164,060 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2037 Remaining: 143,550 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2038 Remaining: 123,040 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2039 Remaining: 102,530 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2040 Remaining: 82,030 coins (Block reward per block: 0.1953125 BTC) By the completion of the 7th halving (projected April 2036): Total Bitcoin minted: 20,835,937.5 coins Total Bitcoin left unmined: 164,062.5 coins This means that by April 2036, 99.22% of Bitcoin’s total supply will have been fully mined. The gradual depletion of block rewards is hardcoded into Bitcoin’s protocol and can be calculated with absolute precision, yet most people fail to grasp this reality, refuse to believe it, or simply deny this inevitable outcome. Let us break down a critical question: Can Bitcoin sustain steady operation all the way to the 7th halving in April 2036 relying solely on its current block reward model? A simple cost analysis lays bare the issue. The current mining cost per Bitcoin stands at roughly $75,000. After three more halvings, mining costs will surge eightfold, pushing the cost per coin to $600,000. At that price point, Bitcoin’s overall total market capitalization would need to top $12 trillion. By contrast, the total hardware value of all Bitcoin mining rigs across the globe is only around $7 billion. How can a $12 trillion market be supported by merely $7 billion worth of mining hardware? This is utterly illogical and devoid of basic market sense. Are all institutional investors and capitalists in this space ignorant or irrational? This scenario completely defies commercial logic and fundamental capital principles. Scaling up network hash rate will only drive mining costs higher, amplify operational losses, and accelerate the onset of a death spiral. This is an unsolvable dead end under the existing rules—there is only one fix: expand block reward supply. The solution: #NAT #NAT is a native asset built directly on the Bitcoin mainchain. It shares identical hash power, blockchain, block generation cycle and wallet address system with Bitcoin, minting synchronously every ten minutes within each block. It functions as the secondary native asset minted in parallel within every Bitcoin block, Bitcoin’s twin asset sharing the same foundational blockchain infrastructure. Two of the world’s top 4 mining pools, SpiderPool and F2Pool, have already begun distributing #NAT to miners. The entities with the most to lose are the major Bitcoin holders ranked below: 1. Coinbase (Exchange + ETF custody): 976,000 BTC ​ 2. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy, public listed firm): 845,300 BTC (Latest financial filing update, June 8) ​ 3. BlackRock IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Spot ETF): 817,100 BTC ​ 4. Binance (User exchange reserves): 631,000 BTC ​ 5. BTC seized by the U.S. government: 328,400 BTC ​ 6. Fidelity FBTC ETF: 190,000 – 200,000 BTC ​ 7. Grayscale GBTC: 144,000 BTC (Sustained net redemptions and drawdowns) ​ 8. Bitfinex Exchange: Approximately 195,000 BTC

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 56 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.

• 
  Weaver (@Trend_Weaver) reported 56 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Been watching the same thing. Feels more like a slow grind than a strong reversal right now.

• 
  Erik (@ero_crypto) reported 57 minutes ago

  CENTRALIZED EXCHANGE ASSET FLOWS Where is capital moving across centralized exchanges this month? Looking at 30-day net flows across 65+ tracked CEXs, the picture shows a clear shift in capital and confidence between platforms. As of August 6, 2026, total CEX assets stand at $244.6B, down from $246.86B 30 days earlier — a net decline of $2.26B (-0.92%). ◾ 28 exchanges recorded inflows totaling +$893.5M ◾ 37 exchanges saw outflows totaling -$3.15B ◾ OKX: -$1.186B (-5.59%) ◾ Bybit: -$604.2M ◾ Bitfinex: +$263.91M ◾ Deribit: +$257.36M Bitfinex and Deribit attracted the strongest inflows relative to their size, while OKX and Bybit experienced some of the largest capital outflows. The broader takeaway: capital is leaving CEXs overall, but the flow between individual platforms is telling a much more interesting story.

• 
  FUINY7 (@FUINY77) reported 57 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Btc is broken, and you are delusional.

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 59 minutes ago

  @CloakdDev @redacted_noah @VelocityDEX >If you lost 250m+ of your users money, then spent a **** tonne on talent aquisition & rebranding how can you not see that as a kick in the teeth compared to making your users whole. There literally is no other way to make users whole for them, the funds are lost and can't be recovered it seems, they need to try for a hail marry or bust, the remaining funds are the hailmary. Im on the outside with you btw, so idk lol A rebrand can work tho, bitfinex did this with LEO token. theres precedence to it working out for users. More USDT coming to Solana would be great too for everyone. Just seems like a good idea. >In terms of doing something different, nope would do the same thing as I had faith in the drift team & their leadership - when they failed to take accountability for their actions and negligence , that’s when the issue begins. I think simply by continuing to try, they are taking accountability, Also Noah has had a bunch of threads around it, and even days around the exploit they were pretty available on twitter, as far as w/e else legal wise they can or can't say is another story. Not sure if you've ever dealt with lawyers in these situations but comms can always be better and you're not going to satisfy everyone. Theres nuance to what you can say. They are trying more than other protocols i've seen. >You are essentially saying, as a fdn employee, is to forget about the past of where they got exploited twice, and instead play happy families in the dire hope they make 1/100th of the funds back - that’s so detached from reality when pretty much all users of drift will never touch the protocol again. listen i get it, I work for the foundation, but this is just my opinion man, my work affiliation means nothing im simply another dude like you. >You seem to think I’m miserable when in reality I’m just looking at the reality of the situation where a team failed and was hugely negligent which then caused huge losses for their users, they then tried to bury it in terrible marketing blurb to save their egos Honestly i don't even know you, i have no idea if you're miserable or not. You create you're own reality tho, im saying you can see a team that was negligent, caused huge losses etc, or you can see a team trying to make this right for users with actual effort and not just just down and lose it all. Im a glass half full guy, no glass half empty. >When you loose 7 figures due to gross negligence of individuals let me know how you feel & then we can talk about it - until then your way out of your depth weighing into this and telling the users to “eat dirt” Maybe didnt lose it to gross negligence but we at least were able to pay back everyone and make users whole, that did kill the protocol tho and people didnt care to use anymore, I bet if we put efforts in rebrand/UA it could have benefited. It's one reason i think the rebrand actually is beneficial. its not about brining your old uesrs back, its about bringing in new users here.

• 
  ArsObKSC (@DereckWDew) reported 1 hour 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

• 
  Muntari Abdulhamid (@SupplyDemand29) reported 1 hour ago

  $BTC BITCOIN BOUNCES TO $64,812 AND ETHEREUM LEADS - BUT DON'T GET TRAPPED Today's market is doing the exact opposite of yesterday and most people will misread it. BTC is up to $64,812 from $64,246 open. Low was $63,267, high $65,176. We bounced $1,500 from yesterday's dump. ETH is at $1,922 up 1.12%, high $1,936 low $1,872. ETH/BTC at 0.0297 - ETH is beating BTC again. So what changed in 24 hours? Yesterday Korea's KOSPI crashed 10% and dragged us to $63K. Today Korea crashed again and Bitcoin went UP toward $64K. That's called decoupling. Bitfinex predicted this. When stress is rates-driven, BTC dumps with stocks. When stress is stock-specific like chipmakers Samsung and SK Hynix, BTC decouples and holds. That's exactly what happened today. Second, Fed relief. The panic before Fed is over. Market is positioned. Bitcoin held the $63K support and 50-day EMA at $65,089 area, printed its 4th weekly gain structure intact.