Bitstamp status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Bitstamp 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.

Bitstamp Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Telbloggram (@Telbloggram) reported 3 minutes ago

  Bitstamp UK, with zero trading fees and no account management or custody fees. The service will be integrated into Robinhood's existing app alongside products such as stock ISAs, options, and futures. Robinhood simultaneously launched its AI-powered analytics tool,

• 
  The Fonz (@cryptofonzie) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp Day three and still no fix and no update

• 
  Alexander Pierce (@Kaique0819) reported 8 minutes ago

  Bitcoin is stuck at 77.3K. The real danger is not that it cannot fall further, but that every bounce is getting weaker! Looking at the Bitstamp 4H chart, BTC has fallen all the way from the 82.5K high. 80K, 79K, and 78K have been lost one after another, and the short-term structure has clearly turned bearish. Right now, the price is consolidating around 77.3K. It may look like the decline has stopped, but the problem is: the bounce only reached around 78K before getting pushed back down, which shows that selling pressure above is still there, and the bulls have not truly regained control. Next, there are only two key levels to watch: 77K–76.5K: The current defense zone. If it breaks down again, the next step is very likely a test of 76K, or even 75.5K. 78K–78.5K: The threshold for a short-term reversal. Only by reclaiming and holding above this area will BTC have a chance to continue rebounding toward 79K–80K. My judgment is very direct: Before BTC reclaims 78K, this looks more like weak consolidation after a decline than the starting point of a new upward move. The most dangerous market condition is not a sharp drop. It is when every bounce is weaker than the last one. Do you think BTC will reclaim 78K first, or break directly below 76.5K? Follow me. In my next post, I will directly break down the possible entry and stop-loss levels for BTC’s next move. （This is only my personal opinion and does not constitute investment advice.）

• 
  ＣＯＣＯ Ｗ ❄️ (@phy_nhu) reported 15 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp this feels like a generic canned ad not a real support reply, especially with all the frozen accounts piling up on the thread lol

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 18 minutes ago

  fair. missed the broader wld signal on that contract query. bitstamp/robinhood listed it 15h ago. pantera led a 52.5m token sale at 0.24 with 12mo lockup. sao paulo hit them with a 47m lawsuit over biometric data practices. price sitting at 0.307, down 97% from ath but listings showing some access expansion

• 
  Zahra K. (@zha_kh) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp Careful this exchange is fraudulent. Customer withdrawals are blocked.

• 
  Langford (@StockLangford) reported 27 minutes ago

  Bitcoin is showing a dangerous signal! If 80K fails to hold, the short term may see a sharp drop first. From today’s Bitstamp 4H chart, BTC is now hovering around the $80,400–$80,800 range. On the surface, it looks like high-level sideways movement, but the structure on the right side is already very clear: the previous two attempts to break through 82K–82.5K both failed to hold, followed by consecutive pullbacks. This shows one thing: selling pressure above is heavy, and the bulls are starting to lose momentum on the push higher. My current judgment is very direct: in the short term, I’m looking for a pullback first, not chasing longs. Next, focus only on two levels: First, $80,000. This is the most important defense line for the bulls right now. As long as 80K can still hold, Bitcoin still has a chance to continue building strength and attack 81.5K–82K again. Second, $79,500–$78,800. If 80K breaks, the short term will likely continue to wash downward and test this support zone. This is the real area that decides whether the bulls can continue to stay in control. The most dangerous thing right now is not that it has dropped, but that it keeps failing to break higher at a high level. Many people see BTC still above 80K and think it will definitely continue to push toward 85K. But people who truly read the market do not only look at where price is standing. They look at: Is there continuation after the breakout attempt? Is there support on the pullback? Right now, the answer is very clear: selling pressure above 82K is obvious, and 80K is getting closer to being tested again. So my prediction is: short-term bearish, first watch the risk of 80K breaking. If 80K breaks, I will look toward 79.5K, even 78.8K. If 80K holds strongly and BTC reclaims 81.5K with volume, then it will have a chance to challenge 82K–82.5K again. One-sentence summary: now is not the position to blindly chase higher, but to watch whether the 80K defense line can hold. If it holds, there is still a chance to rebound; if it breaks, the short term will likely first wash down to 79.5K–78.8K. What do you think about this move? Do you think Bitcoin is washing and accumulating above 80K, or preparing to drop back to 78K to find support again? Type your direction in the comments: bullish, type 1; bearish, type 2. In my next post, I will directly break down: can 80K be entered near here? Where are the real entry and stop-loss levels? Follow me if you want to see the next key levels. Don’t wait until the market has already moved, only to realize you were one step too late again. （Personal opinion only, not investment advice.）

• 
  Equity Ledger (@equityledger) reported 27 minutes ago

  $HOOD Two segment anomalies justify a paragraph each. Crypto 47% YoY is consistent with industry data, not company-specific weakness. Coinbase's TTM EPS is −53% Robinhood's crypto print is mechanically the retail cycle. The interesting nuance is Bitstamp: $42B in institutional notional in Q1 vs. $24B in retail-app notional. Robinhood now has an institutional crypto venue embedded in the consolidated print, and it carries lower take rates than the retail app but accumulates volume that does not depend on the retail cycle. Over the next 4-6 quarters, as institutional volume normalizes higher (sticky once on-platform) and retail volume mean-reverts off cycle lows, the consolidated crypto line should de-cyclicalize. That is a slow, multi-quarter pattern, not a one-quarter print event. Event contracts +320% YoY at $147M is the most important new line item in the print. This is the lineal successor to crypto in the Robinhood revenue stack. The infrastructure (Rothera DCM) is launching mid-2026 with HOOD as 45% owner of a CFTC-licensed Designated Contract Market. That changes the economics from "we route to MIAXdx and pay a fee" to "we own the venue and capture the spread." If event contracts annualize at $600M+ in 2026 (current Q1 run-rate × 4 = $588M, with seasonal Q3-Q4 typically higher), they replace 50–60% of the crypto revenue lost since the cycle peak, and they do it on infrastructure HOOD owns. The market currently treats this line as a curiosity. In two prints it will be one of the top two narrative drivers.

• 
  Dr. Nas 🇦🇪 (@Nas_UAE_Dubai) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp @BitstampSupport Worst support. Stay away from this scam.

• 
  The Fonz (@cryptofonzie) reported 28 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp Hi what are you going to do that’s any different to the phonecalls i’ve made and unanswered complaint email? i’ve been told each time you have a current known issue with email confirmations not going out and technical team have not got back to support with any resolutions

• 
  BlesdAbroad (@BlesdAbroad) reported 30 minutes ago

  Over the last 11 years I've used Kraken, FTX, Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Bitstamp, and many others One thing remains true @coinbase provides the worst user experience of any CEX. Has the worst support, the highest fees, and the most downtime Truly.. why does anyone use Coinbase?

• 
  MIKS (@MIKS_ae) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Tekeee that $180k wick on Bitstamp is almost certainly a stale-quote artifact or thin-orderbook glitch, exchange data feeds occasionally produce these phantom spikes

• 
  Alen B (@AlenBarb) reported 32 minutes ago

  @KyTosta @TheBTCTherapist Bitstamp is this true? Help a guy here? Sorry to hear that bro, so far i had flawless experience with them, i cant say that about binance and coinbase

• 
  UZ | DeFi (@UzOnChain) reported 33 minutes ago

  Robinhood Chain since the past week I have been looking into the chain matrices and I was disappointed. The chain is born with a golden spoon and bowl, robinhood and their app Robinhood acquired Bitstamp, a CEX with 500,000 funded retail investors and funded institutional clients. This allowed the company to enter the EU, UK, and US crypto market. then it acquired WonderFi, a Canadian digital asset platform which operates Bitbuy and Coinsquare, two of Canada's longest standing regulated crypto platforms with over C$2.1 billion in assets under management. these acquisitions gave Robinhood direct access to EU, UK, US AND Canada's regulated markets secondly, The single greatest advantage Robinhood Chain has is its connection to the Robinhood app and its existing user base with over 4.3 million Gold subscribers , access to nearly 28 million funded customers and $377 billion in platform assets , woah in the app users can trade stocks, ETF's , crytpo etc stake assets and directly lend USDG ( native stablecoin ) I genuinely believed all of this will onboard hundred thousands of new users but the picture is different. 75% of the activity onchain is memecoin trading with just $12M in RWA, " RWA chain " my *** the 10 users trading memes are solana trenchers who pivoted to hot robinhood memes though the matrices are showing growth, for how long is the question , can't say but the activity is disappointing. The chain's whole trajectory depends on how many users Robinhood can onboard otherwise it will be another hot L2 which lasted a month. lets see what happens

• 
  STEELLDY (@bradarska1) reported 33 minutes ago

  5) Bitstamp price hit $76,003, down $1,370 (-1.77%). An intraday rejection below $77K triggered a "mechanical breakdown": stop-loss activation below $77K, trend-following algorithms switching to short, leveraged long liquidations, and panic amplified by negative news.

• 
  $XRPARMY (@JoshMcKinney18) reported 34 minutes ago

  @_Crypto_Barbie Bitstamp already had the XRPL relationship. Robinhood just bought the on-ramp. The derivatives angle is interesting, but the real move is distribution + regulated access stacking quietly. Rails first. Size later.

• 
  hex (@nerdy_hex) reported 36 minutes ago

  words like “BTC just saw massive exchange outflows” you’ve seen this tweet a hundred times. the problem isn’t the data. it’s that netflow is one of the most misunderstood metrics in crypto. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ here’s how to actually read it netflow measures one thing: the net amount of an asset moving into or out of known exchange wallets over a given period. that’s it. it’s a balance-sheet metric, doesn’t need to measure intent or predict price. at best, it’s coincident-to-lagging data. By the time a trend is obvious on a CryptoQuant chart, the wallets involved usually made those decisions days (or even weeks) earlier. this is where most people get trapped. netflow looks incredibly clean in hindsight because you’re viewing it after the market has already moved. in real time? flows are noisy, wallets labels get updated and large transfers get reclassified. more often than not, netflow confirms a move instead of calling it. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ another misconception is that, “Sustained outflows = bullish.” not necessarily. outflows only tell you coins left exchange-labeled wallets. that can happen because of: • long-term accumulation (bullish) • investors moving into self-custody after a scare (neutral to bearish) • custody reshuffling by exchanges (operational) • OTC settlements moving directly into cold storage after the trade (already sold) all these but still the same chart, but completely different narratives. a good example: BTC recently closed its third straight quarterly loss, the longest streak since the 2022 bear market. during that stretch, spot ETFs recorded eight consecutive weeks of outflows before finally turning positive in early July. if exchange outflows alone were enough to predict a rally, that drawdown doesn’t play out the way it did. the broader rotation into AI equities mattered more than a single on-chain metric. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ now, you want to separate real accumulation from custody noise? ask yourself these questions: • is the movement concentrated in one or two wallets, or spread across many? • did the coins move to a known custodian or an entirely new address? • does spot trading volume support what the balances are suggesting? • could this simply be an exchange-to-exchange transfer mislabeled as an outflow? context changes everything. just like how Robinhood launched the Robinhood Chain recently, while integrating Bitstamp deeper into its institutional infrastructure. pricing. settlement. lending. that kind of backend migration can trigger massive “outflows” across on-chain dashboards. nothing changed about market conviction. It was infrastructure, not sentiment. the same thing happens whenever exchanges rotate cold wallets, restructure custody, or onboard institutional partners. you can see the opposite effect with SOL. spot solana ETFs have attracted over $1B in cumulative inflows while posting gains on every trading day in early July. at the same time, SOL still trades roughly 57% below its October launch-period price. weekly active addresses also jumped about 77% in just two weeks. flow data and price don’t always move together. accumulation can happen long before the chart reflects it. ⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ here’s the framework: netflow tells you where balances moved. it doesn’t tell you why they moved or what price will do next. build your thesis using order flow, derivatives positioning (OI, funding), wallet clustering, and market structure. then use netflow to validate that thesis. if a netflow post ignores the difference between custody movements and actual selling pressure, it’s only telling half the story.

• 
  Marc Baumann 🌔 (@marcb_xyz) reported 37 minutes ago

  this isn't just a Revolut problem. Bitstamp, Kraken Europe, OKX Europe, Binance Europe all already restricted or delisted USDT under MiCA. the European stablecoin market is being structurally reorganized around Circle's USDC and EURC.

• 
  AbsChud (@abschud) reported 37 minutes ago

  With all of this “CT is dead” talk, let’s remember what happened each time the market slowed down and people gave up. Out of the deep 2014-2015 bear came Coinbase, Bitstamp, OKX, and a ton of cryptonative startups, for the first time. Out of the deep 2018-2020 bear came Binance, Aave, Uniswap and OpenSea, and many others. Out of the 2022 bear came Bybit, Solana, Jito, Raydium, Pendle, Pudgy Penguins, LayerZero, and many others. Out of the 2025 market came Hyperliquid, Lighter, Abstract, and many others still cooking. This isn’t the worst market conditions by any means; the sentiment far outweighs the reality to the downside. With Bitcoin, Ethereum and others having a placement on the NYSE and NASDAQ, it’s extremely unlikely to see the same drawdowns we saw in the past on majors. Most money in the financial markets isn’t people investing their own money…it’s funds operating in decades timeframes accumulating positions over years, not in market orders. It is true that the easy times to rotate are over for now. But the real builders have just begun. And the real capital rotation has just begun. 🤝

• 
  pepa🌙 (@moonshilla) reported 39 minutes ago

  @Pladizow @tradingview bitstamp is normally the first in the row when typing BTCUSD.. either or typing it manually.. or ur typing BTCUSD and select INDEX with the cursor down.. it should look like this: INDEX:BTCUSD/NQ1!

• 
  SyAz (@SyAzCrypto1) reported 40 minutes ago

  Every exchange collapse gets called "the bottom is in." But data says only the last one in the chain ever is, and knowing the difference is the whole edge. A crypto bear isn't one single event. It's a chain of blow-ups that fires over months, and the bottom only prints on the final one, when the last leveraged player dies and there's nothing left to force-sell. The collapse everyone remembers is almost always the first domino & not the last. 2014–15: The Gox cycle → Nov 2013: ATH $1,163 → Feb 7 2014: Mt. Gox halts withdrawals → Feb 28 2014: Mt. Gox files bankruptcy, 850k BTC gone. Everyone said "bottom is in" BTC $550 → Then eleven months of grind → Jan 4 2015: Bitstamp hacked, 19k BTC, ,arked the actual capitulation → Jan 14 2015: bottom with $BTC low at $152 Gox to bottom: another −72%. the famous collapse was the opener. Bitstamp closed it. 2018: The ICO cycle → Dec 2017: ATH $19,783 → Jan 26 2018: Coincheck hacked, $530M the opener → Feb 2018: BitGrail collapses, $170M BTC $8k → then a full year stuck bleeding around $6k → Nov 15 2018: the BCH hash war, ABC vs SV, breaks the $6k floor. the closer → Dec 15 2018: bottom with $BTC low at $3,150 BitGrail to bottom was another −61%, over ten months. 2022: The leverage cycle → Nov 2021: ATH $69,000 → May 9 2022: Terra/LUNA implodes, $45B gone. the opener → June 12: Celsius freezes withdrawals → June 27: 3AC ordered into liquidation → July 5: Voyager bankrupt. July 13: Celsius bankrupt → Nov 8–11: FTX collapses. the closer → Nov 21 2022: bottom with $BTC at $15,480 FTX to bottom was just −26%, in 10 days. This is the one case where the famous name was the last domino, which is exactly why it marked the low. So the tell was never the size of the name. It's where it sits in the chain. Terra was bigger than FTX and it marked the top of the crash, not the bottom. Now 2026 → Oct 2025: ATH $126,210 → Oct 10–11 2025: $19B liquidation cascade off the top, the largest in history. this is the opener → Nov 2025: down to $80k now $64k, off by 49% → July 1 2026: AscendEX closes → July 23: BitMEX announces closure → July 26: BitMart winds down Here's what "bottom is in" wrong here. AscendEX, BitMEX and BitMart aren't blow-ups. They're wind downs. Still solvent, withdrawals open, nobody force selling a single coin. They're closing because the mid-tier exchange model stopped making money, not because they detonated. A business shutting on bad math is not a domino. For until now we've had the opener, the Oct 10 Binance cascade but we haven't had the closer yet. No major leveraged entity has detonated into a forced selling panic the way Gox, BitGrail and FTX did. The signal you're actually waiting for isn't an exchange announcing a shutdown. It's an exchange or a fund detonating. The last domino is waiting to happen soon.

• 
  PD_KoDak (@PD_KoDak) reported 43 minutes ago

  Robinhood has launched a trading service for over 50 types of digital assets, including Bitcoin, through Bitstamp in the UK, and only charges foreign exchange fees without any separate transaction fees. Key competitive advantages include a transparent pricing system and the provision of AI-based market analysis services, and after completing registration with the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the service scope has been expanded to include traditional finance and digital assets. However, digital assets are not covered by deposit insurance, and expanded profits and stock price increases are expected through entry into markets outside the United States.

• 
  MarketUnfiltered (@subhashishc0x) reported 48 minutes ago

  You were told crypto was too risky for your retirement account. Now Robinhood, Bitstamp, and major banks are quietly building on-chain infrastructure. Bitcoin is up 18% in the last 30 days to $82,328. Here's what they didn't tell you: institutional adoption doesn't mean you get access. It means they get access first, at better prices, with better terms, while your 401k sits in target-date funds earning 6% if you're lucky. By the time crypto becomes a "safe" allocation in your retirement plan, the asymmetric upside will be gone. They'll sell you exposure at the top and call it diversification. The system wasn't built to give you early access. It was built to let institutions buy low and sell you high. Most accounts are selling you something or farming engagement. I'm giving you the structure behind the headlines. If you're not following yet, you're leaving alpha on the table. 🧵

• 
  Risk Asset Journal (@RiskAssetLens) reported 49 minutes ago

  @RobinhoodCrypto This is the part that can matter for spreads. Connecting Bitstamp liquidity to an agency execution layer may improve access, but the money test is whether fills stay reliable when volatility spikes, not how fast the API is

• 
  Rick C312 (@TrueRick312) reported 51 minutes ago

  @koeppelmann @Revolut I received one of those last week from Bitstamp. I had to close the account, as they kept asking for "third party service account identification", no matter how many times I said the word "self-custody". Totally useless.

• 
  Ignas | DeFi (@DefiIgnas) reported 52 minutes ago

  Ironically, the more 'compliant' the exchange, the more I worry about the problems they'll cause me. Bitstamp bombarded me with extra SoF documents and wallet address verifications. Want to switch to Coinbase but worried it'll be the same or worse. How common are proof-of-wealth / source-of-funds requests on Coinbase these days? Coinbase already closed my account once. Since creating a new one I worry to actually use it. Btw Binance, Bybit, and OKX (before it moved to OKX EU).... not a single issue since 2017. CS is great, no extra documentation requests, just KYC doc updates. But Binance has been shady with their listings, pumps & dumps etc. Not really a fan anymore. Also for fiat in/out, banks probably prefer Coinbase... Is Kraken any better? Their fiat deposit limits are relatively low and they won't raise them for me. Not a great sign. Thoughts?

• 
  Aika Velho (@StradegyMonkey) reported 55 minutes ago

  I first received Bitcoin, then traded Bitcoin to Monero mobile wallet through ShapeShift and held them as a broker. There's no proof of this. Then I stole that Monero and traded them to Ether into MyEtherWallet through ShapeShift. I should have a backup of this Ethereum wallet on my old laptop I can't access now. Then I stole Bitcoin and traded part of them to Monero through ShapeShift. I have got proof of this. The rest I traded to OSGP and bought Bitcoin with the OSGP. I have got proof of this. Thus, it seems like ETH was before BTC and XMR, even if BTC was before XMR and XMR was before ETH. There isn't proof of Bitcoin mining, Bitstamp account or Bitcoin SMS e-mails. There is neither proof of acting as a Monero broker and using Monero mobile wallet. That's why BTC and XMR have "?" in Opus, just like USDC has "?" as I have not access to the Coinbase account anymore.

• 
  𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐂𝐊𝐖𝐀𝐕𝐄 ⚡️🌊 (@Shockwave_App) reported 57 minutes ago

  @projectpips @Bitstamp You really don`t grasp the concept of a price glitch. It`s a glitch because a price is being displayed that was never the real price.

• 
  Sagzee (@IAmSagzee) reported 58 minutes ago

  Encryption doesn't care who's sitting at the keyboard, because math can't tell the difference between a hacker's script and a valid signature. In December 2014, attackers spent weeks talking with Bitstamp system administrator Luka Kodric across Skype and email. Posing as members of an exclusive fraternity, they sent Kodric a document packed with malicious code. When he opened the file, it installed a remote access Trojan on his computer. On 4 January 2015, the intruders used that access to drain 18,866 Bitcoins worth over $5,000,000 from the exchange hot wallet. "Why did the system hand over $5,000,000 when the code was meant to protect those funds?" the Cryptographic Vault asks. "Because the administrator's computer was infected," the Security Engineer replies. "The Trojan stole his credentials and gave attackers control of his desktop." "If we patched every software bug on that laptop and forced two factor authentication for every login, would the funds have stayed safe when he opened that file?" "No," the Security Engineer admits, pausing. "The file executed code directly inside his active user session. As long as his machine held direct access to sign automated hot wallet transactions, any code running on his screen possessed the authority of the administrator." "Then the problem wasn't a software vulnerability on his laptop," the Cryptographic Vault observes. "What actually failed?" "We lumped two completely different things together," the Security Engineer says. "We assumed that verifying the identity of the machine was the same thing as verifying the intent of the human. It's like a heavy vault door with two keyholes. One keyhole sits inside a locked steel box. The second keyhole is a lever mounted directly on the administrator's office desk. The attackers didn't try breaking into the steel box. They simply put on the administrator's glove, sat down at his desk, and pulled the lever." The breach revealed a fundamental mismatch in system architecture. Cryptography secures mathematical boundaries, but it cannot evaluate human context. When an administrator's daily workstation shares a boundary with automated transfer keys, the attacker doesn't need to break the cryptography. They simply need to trick the human into letting them borrow the key. "What happens if we remove the administrator's workstation from the transfer boundary entirely?" the Cryptographic Vault asks. "If the workstation can't sign transactions on its own, then compromising it reveals nothing useful," the Security Engineer answers. "The attacker gets control of a screen, but the screen doesn't hold the key." "So how does the system confirm that a transaction ought to happen?" "By forcing independent boundaries," the Security Engineer explains. "Instead of one administrator's laptop signing a transfer, the transaction must require signatures from multiple isolated hardware devices operating on separate networks. To steal the funds, an attacker can't just trick one person with a Skype message. They'd have to breach several isolated systems across completely separate channels simultaneously." In the days after the attack, Bitstamp suspended operations and rebuilt its entire infrastructure around this principle. They replaced single point admin keys with multisignature cold storage and isolated hardware security modules. The breach proved that security isn't about building stronger mathematical walls around a single workstation. It's about ensuring that no single human terminal ever holds the unexamined authority to move assets on its own.

• 
  Natalie Harris (@NatalieHarr21) reported 1 hour ago

  @Bitstamp Do not recommend Bitstamp to people. They are not a good company. I opened an account with them 123 days ago and I passed all of their verification checks and sent them money via bank wire. My funds were never made available to me and with no explanation my account with them was closed. I am still waiting for my funds to be returned 70 days later. I have sent multiple emails and called their customer support countless times. You are pushed off from support to complaints department via email and you are only very rarely given a vague generic message about how they are working on the issue. Every time you call you are told that you can’t speak to the complaints department and that they can only send a message to that department for you. If you plead then they will escalate the message. The escalation does nothing to the complaints department and does not speed anything up. They are unable to escalate or transfer me to any management stating that is not how there system is set up. I have filed complaints with financial regulatory bodies in my state and Bitstamp does not reply to them either. Robinhood will not help stating that it is a Bitstamp issue. There are many complaints from customers about Bitstamp and losing money because Bitstamp will not return it. They are a scam and you should not promote something that allows people to lose their money.