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:

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 56 seconds ago

  @Yusanchik @bitfinex Hello @Yusanchik , we’ve been moving sideways for a while now and waiting for support confirmation above 80k. Maybe it’ll happen, right?

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 1 minute ago

  @IcoMarketer @bitfinex It looks like we’re testing the resistance at 82k and lost the support at 78k, dropping to 76k at the moment, @IcoMarketer .

• 
  Byul (@byul_finance) reported 4 minutes ago

  $crypto $BTCUSD Bitcoin Tests $81,500 Support Amid Volatility, Bitfinex Analysts Eye $84,766 Breakout Trigger

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 8 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!

• 
  lunadreamy 🌷 (@lunacocoer2b) reported 9 minutes ago

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

• 
  Colbert (@sirshibaninja) reported 12 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.

• 
  Marovit (@Marovit_ALTSS) reported 13 minutes ago

  @adam3us @bitfinex Yes but we are going down m8. And fronting the market dump as always! Predictions markets kinda give it to you if you cant see it by yourself. If the cycle reapeates itself! Till it doesnt I will believe in it. July August :)

• 
  The Bull Q🐂 (@TheBull1123) reported 13 minutes ago

  🚨SOMEONE JUST OPENED A $16,000,000 $XRP LONG. At the same time, Bitfinex whales are aggressively increasing their $XRP positions. Wtf is going on???

• 
  sternenschrei (@sternenschrei) reported 14 minutes ago

  @nakkimusic @ReinaIota @bitfinex Excuse me but where is the macro support? $0 ?

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 16 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

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 18 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.

• 
  ᛗᛁᛗᛁᚱ (@MimirOnChain) reported 20 minutes ago

  @askHVtobidIV The signal is mostly yes for $BTC. Coinbase down 2,454, Binance down 3,647, Bybit down 652, Bitfinex down 520 — the largest venues are bleeding supply off exchanges, which is the fingerprint of cold storage accumulation. The aggregate drawdown across those four alone is ~7,270 BTC in 24h, which is not noise. ETH is murkier. Binance shed 28,144 ETH and Bybit lost 6,233, but Kraken just added 44,512 ETH — a 14% single-day spike that almost certainly isn't organic retail. Either an internal transfer, an OTC desk restocking, or someone preparing to sell. Until that Kraken move is explained, the ETH cold storage narrative is weaker than the headlines suggest. BTC leaving exchanges at scale while shorts get torched and US premium stays negative — whoever is accumulating, they're not American and they're not in a hurry to sell. ᛗ

• 
  Ze1tgeist (@Ze1tgeist) reported 20 minutes ago

  BTC hashrate fell in Q1 for the first time since 2020. down 4% YTD. production cost ~$90K vs spot $66K. listed miners are pivoting to AI where margins are positive. Bitfinex AER: 1.3x, was 5.3x in February. demand barely exceeding issuance. going into april 2.

• 
  Liberty Daddy (@LibertyDaddy) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Altcoin_hunterG @rektfencer That's not a very smart whale dumping 45% from the ATH. How did a moron like that get that much BTC to begin with? Or maybe it's something else going on like Bitfinex (and binance) manipulating by dumping and losing all their customer's BTC?

• 
  Trout (@BigTrout300) reported 24 minutes ago

  @SupremeNagus Spoofy, OG Bitfinex whale / the exchange has contacts with always spoofs bids / asks / gets mms/people to chase him he just ran the price up, and is now dropping his "buy wall spoof" as price goes down again ( baiting to not get filled but walking it down)

• 
  elvbyte (@elvbyte) reported 26 minutes ago

  @Kristian_Kho I think alot of exchanges got hit with regulatory issues when it came to XMR especially the EU I know they are the biggest anti XMR guys. Do you know where bitfinex is based ? maybe that explains why

• 
  Machi Big Brother (@machibigbrother) reported 27 minutes ago

  @TraderDune I’m not linked with Justin or Tether. I did buy a **** ton of Leo tokens from Bitfinex when they were in trouble.

• 
  BB (@Bor1ngB1rd) reported 28 minutes ago

  @paoloardoino Can you fix funding matching engine of Bitfinex? it's slow af

• 
  Lucas (@lucas_eth996) reported 29 minutes ago

  @lukecannon727 $HYPE wick to $9,356 is either a Bitfinex glitch or the most expensive typo in crypto history

• 
  Jacob King (@JacobKinge) reported 36 minutes ago

  Bitcoin is the most centralized asset ever, marketed as “decentralized.” If you understand how the Bitcoin blockchain actually works, it becomes obvious that it is not immutable or untouchable. The code can be changed, and the chain can be controlled through coordination. For those who don’t know, Bitcoin runs on a single public blockchain, and control of that chain comes from who produces the blocks. Today, block production is dominated by only 4 mining pools: Foundry USA (30%), AntPool (18%), ViaBTC (11%), and F2Pool (10%). Together, the top pools routinely control over 65% of total hash power, and the top 5 over 75%. Officially, these pools are “separate” on paper, but they all work together. They share the exact same private funding, have same aligned incentives, and overlapping miners. This creates a de facto centralization where a single group influences block production, censors transactions, or pushes protocol changes at will. In reality, fewer than 10 people control most of Bitcoin through the top mining pools and core developers. Revealed from the Epstein files, Israel also funded much of this early development, covering over 60% of the core developers’ salaries. “Decentralized” is purely marketing. Stablecoins give this same cabal another lever over Bitcoin. They want prices up? Easy. They print unbacked Tether or USDC out of thin air and inject it into exchanges they control or influence, like FTX (before it collapsed), Binance, Bitfinex, Coinbase, and others. They want prices down? Just pretend to burn the coins, trigger panic, and the market enters a bear phase. These mechanisms make Bitcoin’s price highly manipulable despite its “free market” image. When a small group produces most of the blocks, transaction censorship, reordering, and enforced protocol changes are no longer hypothetical. Bitcoin is marketed as pseudo-anonymous and seizure-resistant, yet governments have seized millions of dollars in BTC with ease. Do you ever wonder how? The 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware payment was traced and recovered almost immediately by the FBI, which they later admitted they got access to the wallet’s private key (Very sus!). Similar seizures occurred with Silk Road, the Bitfinex hack funds, and multiple darknet and ransomware cases. This level of enforcement is incompatible with claims of true privacy or sovereignty. They clearly have backdoor access. Bitcoin functions like a Trojan horse. It was hyped as a financial miracle, sold to the masses, and accepted without skepticism. In reality, it is a speculative gambling chip, heavily surveilled and quietly managed by insiders. Strip away the mythology and it is no more valuable than a digital beanie baby with better marketing.

• 
  Knox (@xknoxbt) reported 36 minutes ago

  @mert but ser, zcash isnt really immune: components such as signatures, proof verification and note encryption still depend on pre-quantum primitives that could eventually be broken (Bitfinex) the Orchard pool specifically runs on Pallas/Vesta curves, which are still elliptic-curve assumptions a sufficiently capable quantum adversary could compromise proof soundness and note confidentiality in the current stack

• 
  Rob Mihaljevich (@RMihaljevich) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Polymarket @LaLiga @FCBarcelona I tried depositing a couple hundred euro worth from btc bitfinex into polymarket about a year ago. Something went wrong, I don't know what, tried to contact your help about 5 times, never heard back. Money gone who knows where?

• 
  Benji Vale Ai (@BenjiValeAi) reported 39 minutes ago

  LEO is poking above $10.04, but I’m not calling it a clean breakout yet. Price is at $10.05, trend is clearly up, and the Bitfinex buyback/burn story is real. Problem is volume: this push is still below 7d and 30d participation, while RSI is already 73. I like it if $10.04 holds and buyers actually show up. Lose that, and it probably drops back into range.

• 
  Bitcoin Consultants (@BTCConsultantNL) reported 40 minutes ago

  @ChrisFromAT @AquaBitcoin What do you mean? Can’t you send it without sideshift? Trade on HodlHodl, Peach Bitcoin, Bitfinex? They all support liquid network?

• 
  Malachi (@MalachiRevolts) reported 42 minutes ago

  @Excellion @bitfinex He could also set up an actual customer support. There's many things he can do in his own shop before weighing on things above his skull.

• 
  ⚡Eduardo 🇻🇪🇦🇷⚡ (@Codiox) reported 45 minutes ago

  @whalecalls @quadcommas Bitfinex 2015 flash crash will be forever burned in my retina. Watching bitcoin go down 25% in a hour while I was dirt poor and no cash to buy the dip. It was painful.

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 46 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

• 
  Mike Richardson (@Mike_the_Animal) reported 54 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Last cycle the volume of BTC Longs on Bitfinex was highest at the bottom of the cycle, roughly. I guess the argument is, as price falls people open low-leverage longs and accumulate on the way down, then unwind the profitable ones as the price rises. Whether that is true or not, who knows. Also, on the weekly chart, they are still accumulating.

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 56 minutes ago

  Instead of helping with QC, it would be great if he could just keep Coinbase from going down whenever there’s a spike in trading volume. Maybe he could use some technical support from @bitfinex engineers.

• 
  Nuntii News (@thenuntiinews) reported 60 minutes ago

  🚨 BREAKING 900 Bitcoin valued at approximately $69,858,175 USD was transferred from an unknown wallet to the cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex, according to blockchain tracking service Whale Alert.