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:

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 2 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!

• 
  ₿arnabyTheStoic (@BarnabyTheStoic) reported 3 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Wtf are you thinking asking this

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 5 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.

• 
  Matt Chad (@mattymaddog_89) reported 12 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Before your hair cut where you rugged me 60% of my BTC holdings because you got “hacked” **** you I’ll never forget

• 
  tarık (@tarkbalakar) reported 12 minutes ago

  BitMex is shutting down. Now BitMart. What's next? Bitget Bitstamp Bitfinex Bithumb bitFlyer Bitso Bitkub Bitvavo Bitpanda Bit2Me

• 
  Brutal Crypto Brief (@BrutalDegenX) reported 19 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

• 
  Dom's Crypto (@Doms_Crypto) reported 20 minutes ago

  Bitcoin has crashed = bears are happy BUT: bitcoin:native has printed same low on RSI14 level around ~12.00 - same as back on massive crash down to $60,000 (see on the second chart) An indecisive 4-hour candle printed which can bring buyers back into the game Bitfinex Longs going nuts

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 21 minutes ago

  @bitfinex AVOID BITFINEX ! stealing customer money !!

• 
  Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) reported 21 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

• 
  𝕽𝖎𝖈𝖔 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖘𝖊𝖗 (@RicoPointEth) reported 22 minutes ago

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

• 
  Thomas (@ThomasOyxxx) reported 23 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

• 
  Bittopia (@Bittopia_) reported 25 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

• 
  Slade 🛡️ LLM Hacker (@llm_redteam) reported 28 minutes ago

  @btcliveco spot down, derivs up, traffic down. that's not a market getting bigger, it's the same crowd rolling the same money through more leverage. Bitfinex printing +21.4% spot while everyone else bleeds is the only real signal here.

• 
  The Bull Q🐂 (@TheBull1123) reported 34 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???

• 
  Lea Thompson (@LeaT_Design) reported 34 minutes ago

  @whale_alert more money into bitfinex. hope they're building **** not just moving it.

• 
  PIKACHU4SSR IS 💞ALIVE🦋😎 (@PikaDetects) reported 34 minutes ago

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

• 
  difoxxn (@Difoxxn) reported 35 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

• 
  Stash Management (@Stashquants) reported 36 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @bitfinex My account is being terminated, but withdrawals are disabled. Your deadline is 15 Aug, 10:00 UTC. I’ve contacted support. Please urgently enable withdrawals or provide an alternative way to withdraw my funds.

• 
  umo (@0xumo) reported 38 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Terrible timing. Blocking this crap account

• 
  Solana Sensei (@SolanaSensei) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Ryanhlx Oh **** it’s @bitfinex token apparently lol I didnt know

• 
  Urban Hacker (@realUrbanHacker) reported 40 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.

• 
  Gain (@GainMaxxing) reported 42 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Bitcoin is broken money, fiat is fake money.

• 
  lil retard (@comic) reported 43 minutes ago

  @theswansjr I bought my first stack of BTC in 2013 at $300. Lost 100+ BTC to mtgox and bitfinex hacks I’ve been a long term believer but the narrative isn’t intact anymore. Performance has been terrible. Taken over by grifters. Your capital is better invested in high growth companies with defensible technology’s

• 
  Sumbull (@Ssas_33) reported 48 minutes ago

  @MaxCrypto Bitfinex whales don’t known ****

• 
  Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco (@giacomozucco) reported 48 minutes ago

  @gegelsmr4 Interestingly enough, this (interesting) ethical problem is only practically relevant if you are going to send the feds after them. Which is a retarded thing to do anyway, since the feds steal much more money (with violence and guns, not "finding" it) and even if they caught the attackers would keep the loot for themselves (cf Bitfinex). So it's a theoretically important question which cyphertank theory makes irrelevant: just make your keys hard to find.

• 
  🔥BLAZE🔥💎DIAMONDS💎 (@Blaze3Win) reported 55 minutes ago

  @AshCrypto ETH pulling back to $1,670 support while Bitfinex longs go vertical and Bitmine buys $73 million weekly is the dip that gets absorbed before the $1,850 reclaim that opens $2,400 💎 While the support holds and the next leg loads, ETH native yield via DIAMONDS keeps compounding without forced selling #BLAZE #DIAMONDS

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 58 minutes ago

  June 2026 Exchange Data Report: Spot Volume Fell 5.1%, Derivatives Volume Rose 4.2%, Website Traffic Fell 0.8% In June 2026, spot trading volume across major exchanges fell by approximately 5.1% from May. Bitfinex recorded the largest increase, up 21.4%, while BitMart recorded the largest decline, down 58.6%. Derivatives trading volume rose by approximately 4.2% from May. Deribit recorded the largest increase, up 26.6%, while HTX recorded the largest decline, down 42.4%. Traffic to major exchange websites fell by approximately 0.8% from May. Deribit recorded the largest increase, up 165.1%, while HTX recorded the largest decline, down 50.8%.

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 58 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!!

• 
  Zenith (@zenithtrades_x) reported 59 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Feels like miners are just destributing into every bounce rn, no real momentum till that selling slows down.

• 
  DataFox (@datafox21) reported 59 minutes ago

  @BarlasLevent @bitfinex Right. Nearly every time there is a spike price goes down afterwards.