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:

• 
  SANDY.CRYPTOMAN (@SanMSH21) reported 2 minutes ago

  $Bitcoin ----Most Costly Mistakes The $44 Billion Bithumb Blunder (2026) A Bithumb employee accidentally sent 620,000 BTC instead of 2,000 Korean Won to users, forcing a massive, near-total network rollback and asset freeze. $44.000 Billion — Bithumb Error (2026) $9.000 Billion Mt. Gox Repayment Move (2024) $3.600 Billion DOJ Bitfinex Seizure (2022) $1.000 Billion DOJ Silk Road Move (2020) $0.003 B. Record Transaction Fee ($3.1M in 2023) $0.001 Billion Paxos Overpayment ($510,000 in 2023)

• 
  Moloch (@Moloch6666) reported 4 minutes ago

  @vincent_vancode It's manipulated on the way down and up It has been discovered in court how tether is manipulating the prices with bots in cooperation with the biggest exchanges(bitfinex case).

• 
  RelativelyIrrelevant.vip (@RelIrrelvantVIP) reported 6 minutes ago

  @Charlesdav43874 @IndyBitcoin So when an XMR customer uses Kraken, KuCoin, Bitfinex, Poloniex (all examples) or similar XMR providers; those DAB's know the Customer and the amount of the Digital Asset Business Activity performed on the Customer's behalf. Those XMR DABAs would not be anonymous & are taxable.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 10 minutes ago

  Bitfinex Alpha: Bitcoin Lacks Sustained Spot Buying Support Bitfinex Alpha said the softer-than-expected US June CPI pushed Bitcoin to its highest close since June 22, but the rally was driven mainly by a repricing of macroeconomic expectations. The move lacked sustained spot absorption, a positive Coinbase premium and constant, price-agnostic ETF inflows, making it a form of “borrowed strength.” The report identified the $68,000–$68,300 range as a key decision band, with sustained ETF inflows needed to support acceptance above this level. Bitfinex remains cautious, warning that if the rates story reverses, the justification for the rally could quickly disappear.

• 
  Kryptos Opus (@kryptosopus) reported 10 minutes ago

  @lush_amorelli @BitcoinMagazine @glxyresearch Tell that to Bitfinex. Hackers sat on 120k BTC for 6 years and still got busted trying to cash out in 2022. The coins didn't vanish, the feds just waited them out. Stolen bitcoin is a ticking clock, not a brick. Terrible ROI, sure, but "impossible" is doing a lot of lifting there

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 11 minutes ago

  @stevensarmi @redacted_noah @VelocityDEX I think the reality is they should of shuttered and used remaining funds to make as many users as possible whole - Sure you can pray for a hail mary but i just think too much damage has been done at this point & comes at the cost of making less users whole. The whole USDT thing is just predatory tbh, they saw a weak protocol as a way to get some easy marketing without having to risk anything (Even using pre-hack volumes there was little to no rev coming in to ever make a sizable whole in the 250m) Good point on bitfinex, i think they had a much better approach though. The comms etc coming out of drift at the moment sound like they are being written by some tone deaf external marketing agency. How long did it take for bitfinex to recover? Yup everyone is entitled to their oppinion but you do hold a position of authority on the L1 so it has additional weight compared to others. Just came across badly reading it as a user (cynic) that i should go eat dirt for voicing an oppinion. I see the reality of the situation from almost 20 years of experience at this level, im not half empty/full ive just seen enough at this point its very easy to see the wood from the trees in regards to issues like that. I prefer to be pragmatic when it comes to money. Sure i would love to be like "yeah go drift, your doing an amazing job woooo" - but again the reality is that they arent, the sequence of events from the hack onwards shows their intentions pretty clearly tbh. Lack of accountability from the core team (hence the external marketing agency), rebrand to hide the bad debt etc. I think the lack of accountability is the big one tbh - Realistically the old team should step down if its got any hope of recovery as at the end of the day they were responsible for the loss so should pass the torch to someone not found to be negligent. No amount of procedure is going to bring back that trust unfortunately. Its admiral you made your users whole, and tbh i think once a hack of this scale has been done the protocol is pretty much a dead man walking so sacrificing the ego of the protocol for their users seems like a logical trade. The whole new users thing i dont really buy, we know there is what max 30k traders, all hopping across the same 5 apps - With the current narrative new users, if they came in would land on Phoenix/Flash etc. Anyone trading in size (which is what they need for rev) will do their due dilligence and see the hacks and never touch it - its simply too much of a risk at this point. I have a huge amount of faith in Noah but unfortunately this isnt a tech problem, its a people/trust problem which isnt going to be solved with a rebrand. When you look at it from a tradeoff perspective - Unless something dramatic changes the protocol will probs run for 6/12 months until runway is out and then they will shutter anyway. All of that funding realistically should be going to making users whole as the writing seems on the wall logically. 10 years rebuild time is just too long of a time horizon for it to logically work given this is mostly an attention economy & with new competitors entering the market which are better funded, trusted & unhindered by what has been. They just arent going to win in that arena. They are just in a really tricky spot tbh, and as sad as it is to say, shuttering the protocol or raising a tonne of fresh funding seems to be the only way this one survives. Everything else is just a half measure

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 12 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

• 
  0xLaplace 🔺 (@0xlaplaced) reported 13 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.

• 
  Pika C (@PikaC888) reported 14 minutes ago

  @bitfinex So you’re saying max pain is BTC going down ?

• 
  Bitfinex'ed 🔥🐧 Κασσάνδρα 🏺 (@Bitfinexed) reported 15 minutes ago

  Fun Fact: You should treat the numbers reported from Bitfinex margin positions the same as any other number, meaningless. Bitfinex could just report arbitrary meaningless information. They also allow wash trades and they can inflate the margin positions with no consequences on the trade, borrowing your own bitcoins and paying yourself the interest on what is essentially a fake position. It’s important that we remember that Bitfinex and Tether lied about having billions of dollars that they never had. Spewing out fake statistics is the least of their problems.

• 
  lunadreamy 🌷 (@lunacocoer2b) reported 16 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Feels like we needed that reset tbh. Everyone was way too comfortable longing the whole way down.

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 17 minutes ago

  BTC Looks like BTC wants to go lower soon imo. We frontran the .786. And we now closed below the .786 on the daily. We also closed above .786 on USDT.D on the daily after the bullish 3 drives. BVOL in support. BTC Longs on Bitfinex moving up. Closing below $74.9kish = bearish BOS confirmed. On top imo it would also be a confirmed H&S. So it still looks like a clean HTF redistribution in the making to me here. HTF Bias: still bearish Main Thesis: we could go below the Feb 6th $60.kish low. Next confirmations: closing below $62.kish SL for confirmed SOW. Invalidation: in case we should close above $90.kish we have a bullish ChoCh on the daily.

• 
  DMT-NAT 小果果（晨曦） (@nat_xgg2288) reported 18 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

• 
  HypeDojo (@HypeDojo) reported 19 minutes ago

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

• 
  Bittopia (@Bittopia_) reported 23 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

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 23 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

• 
  Wall Street NYC Quant. bitcoin-fund-manager.com (@BITCOINFUNDMGR) reported 24 minutes ago

  WTF is going on with $leo by @bitfinex? Are they still buying it back to add to treasury? Price is up 10x continually last 5 years. It looks just like bitcoin when under $100. Also looks like $bnb in 2017. Might be smart to hold a few. Remember. Bitfinex owns USDT Tether. They can do anything they want.

• 
  Lea Thompson (@LeaT_Design) reported 24 minutes ago

  @whale_alert tether moving **** to bitfinex like it's ******* nothing

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 33 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.

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 34 minutes ago

  Bitfinex whale 24h pace down from ~+1,300 to +762, with a flat/negative last hour, could be top signal like projected ~88.4K BTC, +11%, day 18 last time it quit buying Bitcoin gained +20%

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 34 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.

• 
  PIKACHU4SSR IS 💞ALIVE🦋😎 (@PikaDetects) reported 38 minutes ago

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

• 
  BroadSword (@BroadSwordBoy) reported 40 minutes ago

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

• 
  PaperImperium (@ImperiumPaper) reported 44 minutes ago

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

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 54 minutes ago

  @bitfinex BEWARE ! BITFINEX HOLDING CUSTOMERS FUNDS PRETENDING COMPLIANCE ISSUES !

• 
  Bitcoin Regime (@BitPrintzz) reported 54 minutes ago

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

• 
  Kemo (@K3m0s) reported 55 minutes ago

  @tobitdogg @BitQua Not on Tradingview BTCUSD INDEX, CRYPTO, or Bitfinex charts. Their 2015 bear = 90 weeks & 2016-17 bull is 121. Bitfinex was the #1 exchange by volume outside China, whose exchanges were shut down and excluded from data. i.e. you have to ignore the #1 data source to get this

• 
  Youngsky01 (@DaneiCesario) reported 1 hour ago

  @bloom_pegnmk6 @bitfinex Satoshi also wouldn't recognize half the things people call "blockchain" today—he was solving a specific problem (trustless payments), not inventing a hammer for every nail in existence

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 1 hour ago

  @bitfinex BEWARE ! BITFINEX HOLDING CUSTOMERS FUNDS PRETENDING COMPLIANCE ISSUES !

• 
  TU_Crypto_News (@TU_Crypto_News) reported 1 hour ago

  Tony Katz says Europe cutting off Binance could trigger a wider regulatory domino effect, with markets from Australia to the US potentially following. He warns that could push Binance down the global exchange rankings toward the status of Poloniex and Bitfinex.