Bitfinex Outage Map

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 49 seconds 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!

• 
  Mrbankstips Parody (@Mrbvnkstips) reported 1 minute ago

  Every crypto CEX shutting down like Bitfinex and others have one thing in common they bought ETH and over leveraged simple

• 
  EyeOnChain (@EyeOnChain) reported 4 minutes ago

  Abraxas Capital isn't slowing down its ETH buying. Over the past 7 hours, Abraxas Capital has withdrawn more than 15,477 ETH, worth over $29.88 million, from major exchanges. That brings its total ETH accumulation over the past week to more than 48,996 ETH, valued at over $88 million, withdrawn from Binance, Bybit, and Bitfinex. The steady stream of exchange withdrawals suggests Abraxas continues to aggressively accumulate ETH rather than keeping it on trading platforms.

• 
  Mike Richardson (@Mike_the_Animal) reported 6 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.

• 
  crypto_mit ( 🗽/ Acc ) (@Cryptomit) reported 6 minutes ago

  @ArjunKalsy It was nothing to do with bitmart and bitfinex though about points you mentioned, they didn’t went bankrupt had a restriction wind down, No tokens has any utility there’s nothing that can ever exist, Holders are fin savy folks and builders using protocol are dev savy one dosnt does the either No protocol has idea of how they’ll infuse rev from devs to token or even intend to Only protocols like hyperliquid have an intersection of users into rev and token Hard market as attention is hard to keep might not be hard to get

• 
  Solana Sensei (@SolanaSensei) reported 7 minutes ago

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

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 8 minutes ago

  @NobodyonXI Never say never I'd say. Bitfinex and Tron...y not? But personally would wonder a lot in case Tether collapses. Too important for evil money and too big. Maybe a huge depeg and that's it? But yeah never say never. FTX was also big. And after it had served its purpose it was shot down. And we now have USDC so... Need to watch his stuff about in detail! Saw he posted a lot of very nice stuff about it and is very deep into it. I'm not that deep into it. The stuff here that's it more or less

• 
  BlockVault (@blockvaultapp) reported 10 minutes ago

  @bitfinex two lines of code for an easy block size fix.

• 
  BroadSword (@BroadSwordBoy) reported 12 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!!!

• 
  clav (@marsclavie) reported 13 minutes ago

  the timeline is suddenly full of XPL bull posts a month before one of the biggest unlocks relative to float in crypto history. funny timing @plasma here's why it's one of the worst-structured tokens in crypto. with receipts. the setup was perfect. tether and bitfinex behind it. founders fund. $373m committed to a $50m public sale, 7x oversubscribed. $2b of stablecoins on chain on day one. ath $1.68. twelve months later: $0.087. ten straight red monthly candles. back to the launch-day open. –94%. the chain: tvl from $5.7b in week one to $624m today. stablecoins on chain from 2b to 838m. fees: ~$830 a day. about $300k a year against an $870m fdv. that's not a bug. it's the design. zero-fee usdt means the core use case is structurally unmonetizable. every dollar of "adoption" produces nothing for the token. they built the one l1 that can't capture value from its own success. staking was promised for q1 2026. it's august 31. not live. no date. holders are just exit liq. meanwhile their own supply api shows 10.12b+ xpl, over 125m minted beyond genesis, while their docs say inflation "only activates when external validators and stake delegation go live." explain that one. tokenomics: 10b supply, 18% floated at launch. 25% team, 25% investors, one-year cliff. sept 25: 833m team + 833m investors + 89m ecosystem = 1.76b tokens in one day. 63% of the float. then 228m a month, 5% of float, until september 2028. the most circulated bull report, written by a disclosed plasma investor, models the cliff at "roughly 830 million tokens." official docs: 833m team and 833m investors. 1.67b. off by half, in a report about token demand. retweeted by the team. "look guys, this is why you buy xpl!" lmao. plasma one, "the world's first stablecoin-native neobank." their own data: 78,400 "cards." median balance under $1. one wallet holds 11% of all deposits. $17.9m total. 61 app store ratings. revolut has 75m customers and $6b in revenue. this is a dune dashboard with a visa logo. the card pays cashback in xpl. a token down 94%. every reward is a bag. platinum requires locking 100,000 xpl, about $8.5k, for a year. their own bull case admits the flywheel "partially throttles itself": token goes up, the lock costs more; token goes down, you're stuck in it. unit economics: 3–4% cashback against 2–3% interchange. their own investor report concedes they "may lose a little on each transaction." lock demand: ~33m xpl a month. vesting supply after sept 25: ~228m a month. seven to one. before the cliff. cmon bros. this playbook ran before. CRO: lock the token, get a metal card, 19x in 2021. rewards got cut, round-tripped 90%. plasma copied it, made the lock harder to enter, and launched it three months before the biggest unlock in the token's life. no CRO action, just dilution and holders crying. august had record binance spot volume, 12.75b xpl, 4.6x the float. looked like accumulation. it was a binance trading tournament. 4m xpl in vouchers. they paid for volume while the token sat at the bottom. october 2025, the founder: "no team members have sold any xpl." june 2026: wallets labeled plasma team moved 150m xpl to binance, flagged by onchain lens. august 2026: plasma-linked wallets depositing again, three weeks before 833m team tokens unlock. maybe it's market-making. they haven't said a word. same month: ethena bought out its selling investors and put a fee switch to a vote. +100%. monad offered to buy out early investors. pumpfun spent $350m on buybacks and ripped straight through its own cliff. plasma ran a trading competition. the stablecoin thesis is the best thesis in crypto. stablecoins settled $33t last year. the demand is real, in lagos and buenos aires and istanbul, and someone will build the rail. plasma had tether, thiel, and $373m of demand on day one. they built a token dispenser. im not buying the dip. i don’t want it. not because the idea was wrong. because they made it about themselves and not the holders. zero

• 
  🔥BLAZE🔥💎DIAMONDS💎 (@Blaze3Win) reported 16 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

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 16 minutes ago

  This is the kind of narrative that gets pushed while the actual architecture centralizes and leaks. Onion routing hides the full path. That part is real. But the protocol has built in leaks that have been known and documented for years: - Same payment hash on every hop →trivial correlation. - Balance probing recovers up to 89% of public channel balances. - Timing analysis: the single most central node can observe timing on 50% of payments. Top 4 nodes cover 72%. 
Meanwhile the “decentralized L2” part: - Public capacity hovers between 2.7k–5.6k BTC.
- Top 10 nodes control 62% of all public liquidity.
- Gini coefficient for node capacity: 0.97. - Top 10% of nodes hold 80% of the locked bitcoin. This is not decentralization. This is a hub and spoke system with a few very powerful hubs. 
Who runs these hubs? Mostly exchanges and LSPs: Bitfinex, ACINQ, Binance, Kraken, OKX, Wallet of Satoshi and similar. If you’re not running your own full node and managing your own liquidity, you’re almost certainly routing through these entities. They see sender, receiver and amounts. Privacy collapses. 
This isn’t a bug. It’s the predictable result of a design that prioritizes routing efficiency and capital efficiency over actual decentralization and strong privacy. Powerful adversaries (state level or well resourced) don’t even need to break onion routing perfectly. They just sit on or near the big hubs and watch. 
Lightning can move small payments faster and cheaper than on-chain. That’s its actual use case. But calling it incredible privacy by default while the liquidity and routing are this concentrated and while these attacks exist, is dishonest. Real privacy requires an additional layer on top (Chaumian ecash like Cashu is one attempt). The base Lightning protocol does not deliver it. 
Bitcoin was supposed to be a tool for financial sovereignty and resistance to control. When the dominant scaling solution creates new centralized chokepoints that are easy to monitor and potentially censor, we’ve traded one set of problems for another that serves power better. Data doesn’t lie. Narratives do.

• 
  CaptSpectacular (@CaptSpectacular) reported 17 minutes ago

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

• 
  Sumbull (@Ssas_33) reported 21 minutes ago

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

• 
  Erik (@ero_crypto) reported 21 minutes ago

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