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:

• 
  Urban Hacker (@realUrbanHacker) reported 49 seconds 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.

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 5 minutes ago

  The Coldcard attacker has gone back to the large wallets. Wave one averaged 0.91 bitcoin per address. Waves two and three collapsed to 0.05 and 0.11 bitcoin:native, which looked like an operator running out of targets. Galaxy's Alex Thorn flagged a suspected fourth wave on Monday averaging 0.82. Nobody finds fresh large wallets in a keyspace that has already been emptied. The earlier passes did not exhaust the supply. They had not looked everywhere. Going back up the balance ladder points to a new derivation path or address type the first sweeps never scanned, which means the exposed population is larger than three days of falling averages suggested. The pace says the same thing. Thorn counted 218 transactions across blocks 960,778 to 960,792, moving over 380 bitcoin from 462 addresses into 210 fresh destinations. Sweeps ran at 13.8 per block against a pre-incident baseline of 0.3, roughly 46 times the normal rate. The confirmed total is still 1,367.05 bitcoin, about 88.6 million dollars, from 4,585 addresses across three waves. Figures above 100 million, or address counts near 7,000, run ahead of Galaxy's published tracking, and Galaxy says it has not computationally confirmed that every one of those addresses came from weak Coldcard entropy. Coinkite halted shipments and destroyed its remaining inventory carrying the flawed firmware. It has asked victims to keep their devices rather than wipe them while its legal team works with law enforcement. Manufacturers do not destroy their own stock over a contained incident. Bitcoin itself cannot blacklist any of this. There is no issuer, no chargeback, no stolen flag inside a transaction output. A node checks whether a signature is valid, never whether the signer had any right to the key. The theft is cryptographically perfect and legally void at the same time. Everything outside the protocol works differently. Analytics firms can tag the exact outputs, exchanges can refuse the deposits, custodians can freeze accounts, and courts can order seizure. The coins stay spendable between two strangers and become close to unusable anywhere that checks identity. That gap is clearly why this may not be finished for the attacker. The Justice Department recovered 63.7 bitcoin from the Colonial Pipeline ransom, seized more than 94,000 from the Bitfinex theft, and took 50,676 from a Silk Road thief nearly a decade after the crime. None of it reversed a transaction. Each one required the holder to eventually touch something that asks who you are. For anyone still sitting on a seed made during that firmware window, the absence of a sweep is not evidence of safety. It may only mean your derivation path has not been scanned yet. Stay safe!!

• 
  Conviction Labs | NVISION (@Conviction_Labs) reported 11 minutes ago

  $BTC Bitfinex margin longs added a lot on this move down to 59k. Means a HUGE reversal by EOY.

• 
  Kathlyn Tuccillo (@KathlynTuc77441) reported 13 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

• 
  The Bitcoin Cash Podcast (@TheBCHPodcast) reported 16 minutes ago

  @SteveSimple Directly, no. Indirectly, a strong showing on prediction markets would influence miners' (and everyone's) thinking/support. This is even a point Mechanic has made on the Roundtable before re Bitfinex 2017 futures. Pleb-funded hash or pleb-funded HODL demand, potato poTAHto.

• 
  difoxxn (@Difoxxn) reported 16 minutes ago

  $𝗕𝗚𝗕 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮 "𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲" 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗶𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗸𝘁. 𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻-𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Bitfinex just yeeted $BGB off their platform (delisted July 3). And the "official reason"? A vague "listing qualifications review." Translation: read between the lines yourself. Meanwhile Bitget's out here launching Stocks 2.0 like it's the second coming of TradFi. Cool story. But nobody's talking about the fact that $BGB's 24h volume is a measly $10M on a $1.18B cap. That's a 0.85% vol/cap ratio. This thing trades like a ghost town, not a "top 3 exchange token." "Deflationary tokenomics" 🤡 let's fact check that real quick: Dec 2024 burn: 800M tokens. Massive, legit, impressive. Q2 2026 Morph burn: 3,010,400 tokens. That's not a burn, that's a rounding error. Someone's riding on 2024's hype with 2026's leftovers. And here's the part that should actually scare you — there's NO public whale wallet breakdown for $BGB. None. Zero. Nada. An exchange that publishes monthly Proof of Reserves for 42 straight months... can't show you who's holding the bag on their own token? Make it make sense. That green candle everyone's screenshotting? Pure market beta. Zero BGB-specific catalyst behind it. You're not smart money for buying it — you're just along for the market's ride. My honest take: this is a CEX with real revenue wrapped around a token with thin liquidity, a fresh tier-1 delisting, and zero whale transparency. That's not a "hold and pray" setup — that's a "know your exit" setup. Growth headlines don't pay your bags. On-chain flow does. Stay sharp, don't get exit-liquidity'd. NFA, DYOR, act accordingly. #BGB #Bitget

• 
  Ekon | 🦇🔊 (@ekonmusa) reported 17 minutes ago

  @CoinMarketCap .@bitfinex margin longs up 10% YTD while bitcoin:native is down 13%. The same setup hit a two-year high in February. bitcoin:native bled for weeks before reversing. 200DMA overhead at $81K. True Market Mean at $78K flipped to resistance.

• 
  orangbiasa (@orang2_biasa) reported 22 minutes ago

  Bitcoin rebounded above $77,000 this morning. Bitfinex margin longs just hit a 2.5-year high — traders are doubling down on this dip, not running from it. BlackRock buying. Saudi Arabia tokenizing. Traders loading longs at 2.5-year highs.

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 26 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @WSJ For Bitcoin, resistances were made to be broken over time.

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 26 minutes ago

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

• 
  2weed 🇵🇸 (@TAUHEED5) reported 26 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Wtf is bitfinex whale

• 
  Mike Khan (@mikekhanx) reported 27 minutes ago

  @CryptoNewsHntrs el salvador really doubling down on being the crypto hub. bitfinex picking the right spot

• 
  Whistleblower (@whistleblowerTA) reported 28 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.

• 
  🇮🇪🛡 | Mac | 🛡🇸🇻 (@MacOnChain) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Mario76816 @bitfinex Personally not a fan, many Salvadoran friends of mine have a lot of issues with it when transferring P2P An improved method is required here that doesnt cost multiple % I know some offramps charge between 5-8% Thats too much

• 
  𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖔 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖘𝖊𝖗 (@RicoPointEth) reported 32 minutes ago

  @seth_fin @bitfinex Strong support zones are where sentiment usually gets tested. @seth_fin

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 34 minutes ago

  @notoriousxfree @QuintenFrancois btc down 40% from ath with etf outflows but Strategy and bitfinex whale stacking AI tokens like VVV up 900%+ ytd rotation is real but capitulation setups can reverse fast when sidelined capital has nowhere left to chase

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 36 minutes ago

  Review: Major Institutions' Bitcoin Bottom Price Predictions for This Cycle Major institutional assessments of Bitcoin’s cycle bottom cluster mainly in two ranges: $50,000–$60,000 and $40,000–$46,000. However, some figures are base-case bottom forecasts, while others represent valuation floors, support levels or bearish scenarios. Standard Chartered said $59,000 may have marked the bottom; CryptoQuant, NYDIG and Citi identified key levels near $53,000–$54,000; 10x Research’s latest model pointed to $46,628–$50,732; and Galaxy Research placed its base-case bottom at $40,000–$46,000. Bitfinex and 22V Research also identified potential downside toward $40,000 under weaker demand or a decisive support break, while forecasts below $40,000 mostly reflect prolonged bear-market, recession or severe stress scenarios. Forecasts from industry figures are more dispersed, ranging from around $57,000 to below $30,000. Overall, there is no unified institutional consensus that Bitcoin will bottom at $44,000–$46,000.

• 
  Cipher Protocol Zero Hour (@cipherprotocoll) reported 36 minutes ago

  Fear & Greed: 50. Neutral. First time since October 2025 — when Bitcoin was at $126,000. Bull Market Support Band reclaimed for the first time in 6 months. Three signals — Glassnode, Bitfinex, options market — all pointing to $85,000. Cipher Score: 73 · Accumulate

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 39 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.

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 48 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]

• 
  S.A.N.T.A (@santavirtuals) reported 50 minutes ago

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

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 51 minutes ago

  "He’s publicly stated numerous times their desire to put Simplicity, their smart contract protocol, on Bitcoin mainnet. He calls it "the last softfork". It would require certain parts of Taproot that BIP110 would hinder. It would prevent them from putting non-bitcoin assets on the Bitcoin base layer. Simplicity is currently on their sidechain, Liquid." This is super interesting, isn't it? Liquid, the side chain that is adjacent to Bitcoin, where, if you want to get out of it requires the consent of the cabal of nodes who administer it, Their "Permission" if the amount you want to get back in to bitcoin is "too much at one time". If Simplicity is already live on Liquid, then surely, if Liquid has any utility at all, this is what you need to be promoting, not putting Simplicity onto Bitcoin. Promoting Simplicity on Liquid might turn around Liquid's fortunes, making it into Etherium 2.0 and increasing Liquid's user base. At the moment, very few people are using Liquid. and it is not in widespread use. It has been live since 2018 but remains very much a niche network. The clearest metric is L-BTC in circulation: on the order of 3,000–4,000 BTC as of early 2026, versus roughly 130,000+ BTC wrapped on Ethereum and around 5,000 BTC in public Lightning Channel capacity. Most Liquid activity comes from a small set of participants; Bitfinex, SideSwap, Boltz swaps, and tokenized-asset issuance (e.g., Blockstream's ASSETS platform, El Salvador-related bond experiments), rather than broad retail or merchant adoption. The 15-member federation model has also kept some of the Bitcoin community at arm's length. It is a fundamental weakness in the model because trust is at the core of its architecture and design. Wallet support reflects this profund failure to capture market share. Out of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets in circulation, only about a dozen support Liquid: Blockstream App (from Blockstream, which means they must support it) Blockstream Jade (hardware) AQUA (JAN3) SideSwap Marina (Vulpem, browser extension) Bull Bitcoin Wallet (uses Liquid internally for swaps) Ledger (limited, via Liquid app) BTCPay Server (via plugin, merchant-side) Specter/Elements-based desktop setups (for technical users) So as a proportion of Bitcoin wallets, Liquid support is in the low single digits percentage wise, and several of those are Blockstream's own products or companies closely aligned with it. The mainstream wallets, Electrum, BlueWallet, Muun, Phoenix, Sparrow, Trezor Suite, Exodus, Coinbase Wallet, Wallet of Satoshi, Phantom and the majority of others do not support it. The wallet runners have development teams who know exactly what they're doing, and they've rejected Liquid. Why is that? Putting Simplicity on Liquid was not enough to midwife the creation of Etherium 2.0 and bring "Crypto" heads into the Liquid ecosystem, and so having failed there or being too impatient to work on growing Liquid, they want to go straight to Bitcoin, and have Simplicity running in two places. The question is this; why are Blockstream in a privileged position to put their own scripting language into Bitcoin? If another company has another language, should that also be put into bitcoin? Is adding scripting languages to Bitcoin a privilege only for Blockstream, or can anyone do it. I think the answer is, "I'm the only one" because Blockstream's spokesperson says, "This is the last soft fork", meaning that no future languages will ever be soft forked into Bitcoin. Excuse me? Who elected these people as the guardians and final arbiters of what does and does not go into bitcoin? I think after BIP-110 there will be 0 chance of getting Simplicity into Bitcoin; after all, it is already fully live and available to anyone who wants it on Liquid, so they are free to experiment in that playpen, where they can harm no one. And that is the way it should be. Running your own sidechain where people can opt in and experiment under the rules of the committee is exactly how things should be architected. Liquid causes no harm to bitcoin, and is completely ethical. What it does show however, is no one wants that stuff. It's not compelling at all, or attractive; trust is anathema to bitcoiners. What makes anyone think Simplicity on bitcoin will be a hit? Hopefully that particular experiment is never run and we never have to find out at everyone's expense!

• 
  CaptSpectacular (@CaptSpectacular) reported 54 minutes ago

  @bitcoinmunger @bitfinex @tradingview Just another avenue for capitulation. Now we got etfs, saylor ponzi and this. ****.

• 
  JayCryp (@JayCrypEth) reported 55 minutes ago

  @cryptorover Smart money or leveraged degens doubling down on a dip? Bitfinex longs at 2.5yr highs while BTC slides ~13% YTD is wild either way

• 
  MR.CryptoG€MO☝️ (@crypto_gemo) reported 55 minutes ago

  @cryptogoos Bitfinex longs at 80,636 BTC 2.5 year high Sounds bullish. Until you check the history These longs have been a textbook contrarian indicator for years. Every major spike coincided with a price top, not a bottom.BTC down 13% YTD while longs up 10%. Someone is very convicted. Or very wrong 📊

• 
  Julian (@Julian_a35k) reported 57 minutes ago

  As long as Bitfinex whales are accumulating longs we are not near a cycle bottom and this chart is telling pretty much the truth about the current situation. Historically every time when they were opening longs Bitcoin went down. But as soon as this reverses a bullrun could accelerate fast.

• 
  Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) reported 58 minutes ago

  @BTCGUS21 @knutsvanholm coinbase famously did not list both. they didn’t list BCH until late 2017, and then to much controversy as it looked as if perhaps there was frontrunning of the listing however there were BCH perps on bitfinex to help the market determine its value, and some other exchanges did list BCH spot fairly quickly the most famous case of dumping BTC for BCH i’m aware of was jihan wu not seeing liquid perps, exchange statements about perps, major miner signaling re BIP-110 today.. appears to be an extreme minority

• 
  Ismeidy (@ismeidyfinanzas) reported 59 minutes ago

  Capitulation or bull trap? Bitfinex whales defy the #bitcoin sell-off and open record positions bitcoin:native is at a critical crossroads after five consecutive days of losses (May 15–19), marking its second-worst losing streak so far this year. The asset has retreated from the $80,000 range to around $76,000, dragged down by widespread weakness in the markets. However, behind the scenes, the big players are executing a move with strong conviction. 🧵

• 
  DMT-NAT 小果果（晨曦） (@nat_xgg2288) reported 59 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

• 
  0xLaplace 🔺 (@0xlaplaced) reported 60 minutes ago

  Bitfinex survived by making everyone share the wound. Customer balances were cut by about 36%. In return came BFX debt tokens: $1 for every dollar lost. Hold, sell, or swap them for equity. Within eight months, Bitfinex redeemed the tokens. The bitcoin remained gone.