Bitstamp 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.

Bitstamp Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Vadim (@vadim_web3) reported 31 seconds ago

  Look at this: Known CEX balances currently hold ~4.89 BILLION $POL - ~46% of the circulating supply. Meanwhile, low-IQ onchain detectives monitor 5M, 10M, 15M POL transfers to exchanges, draw red circles around them and scream “SELLING 🚨”. Unfollow and block these idiots. They’re not doing analysis. They’re farming content and your attention. A CEX transfer alone is an extremely weak signal of selling. Why? Because almost 5 BILLION POL-equivalent is already behind the CEX wall. Onchain detectives can see POL entering a CEX. They cannot see what happens to it after that. And no, this does NOT mean 5B POL is sitting on order books waiting to be dumped. CEX balances represent an entire financial industry: customer & institutional custody staking market makers liquidity exchange inventory team/company balances internal settlement and plenty of activity we simply cannot see From the wallets I can currently identify: 4.894B POL-equivalent on CEXs 1.710B POL staked 3.184B POL-equivalent outside staking So ~35% of identified CEX balances are demonstrably staked already. POL can move to a CEX without being sold. POL can also be sold without any new onchain transfer to a CEX - because billions of POL are already there. That’s the blind spot of “onchain detective” analysis: once assets enter centralized infrastructure, onchain data stops telling you what is actually happening economically inside it. Top identified CEX balances: Binance - 1.257B POL Coinbase - 1.192B Upbit - 983.9M Kraken - 202.2M Crypto com - 115.7M Bithumb - 110.6M OKX - 99.6M Bybit - 95.0M Bitpanda - 94.6M Bitstamp - 93.4M 38 CEXs tracked. ~4.89B POL-equivalent identified. Keep that scale in mind next time someone draws a red circle around a 10M POL transfer and tells you what it supposedly means.

• 
  votesa ■ (@votesa) reported 9 minutes ago

  base but with a hood on. everyone reviewed robinhood chain as a product launch. i think it's a trap for base airdrop money, set up months in advance. what went live on july 1: → stock tokens in 120+ countries inside robinhood wallet, trading 24/7, usable as defi collateral → uniswap live from day one as the main public dex → morpho powering robinhood earn with ~7% on USDG → USDG issued natively on the chain → perps built straight into the wallet via lighter → arcus (by dYdX team), stock trading at zero fees with a token promised to the community → gas free for the first 90 days now look at base's side of the board. they said out loud they're exploring a network token. in february they walked off the OP stack onto their own codebase and stopped paying optimism rent. and now they're about to ship B20, their own token standard baked straight into the node software. erc20 compatible, but with freeze and transfer controls built in, aimed at stablecoins, RWAs and tokenized equities. nobody rebuilds token plumbing at the protocol level for fun. robinhood chain mainnet july 1. B20 mainnet july 8. one week apart, both laying rails for the same thing. a base token would be the biggest retail wealth event of the cycle. a new class of rich onchain wallets, old ones waking up, normies crawling back the second "base printed" hits their group chats. that liquidity doesn't retire, it looks for the next trade. and post-airdrop money always walks the same ladder: dump some, rotate majors, farm, memes, then something that feels more adult. robinhood just shipped the adult option. NVDA and TSLA as collateral, 24/7, inside an app normies already have on their phones. coinbase wakes retail up. robinhood is standing right there with something to sell them. maybe the whole robinhood arc has nothing to do with base at all. maybe they just executed a year-old roadmap and the window opened around them. but wall street holds COIN and HOOD as one bet on finance moving onchain, and both companies started laying rails for the same moment at the same time. the bitstamp deal fits the same picture: licenses first, then own chain, then tokenized stocks, then defi rails. nobody collects that stack to add two more coins to an app. why would any of this actually hurt base? because eth vs sol is a religion war. evm vs evm is nothing. trenchers bridge in minutes, builders redeploy in a day. there is no switching cost, only reasons. just look at bankr and virtuals. two flagship base projects, both added robinhood chain support within days. no drama, just a new chain in the dropdown. and base picked a bad year to slow down. creator coins meta fizzled, ai agents barely got any support while they were the hottest meta in crypto. baseapp never found its pmf and feels like it exists for optics, not for onboarding anyone. the ecosystem spotlight kept landing on stuff like o1 exchange. loyalty in evm land is a bridge transaction. pure shizo, zero evidence, but the symmetry is funny: coinbase trades as COIN and incubates BASE token. robinhood trades as HOOD. ROBIN completes the pair. do with that what you want. to be fair to the other side: robinhood planned this chain for over a year, a base token still has no date and might not even happen this cycle. and robinhood chain tvl is tiny for now. positioning only pays if liquidity actually shows up. base will be fine. coinbase isn't going anywhere and neither is the money behind it. and i'm saying all this with love. base is the main reason i even stayed onchain these past couple of years. but for the first time base has an evm competitor with a cleaner story for normie capital, and its answer so far is "we're exploring". B20 goes live soon. let's see what base does with it.

• 
  Martin Whately (@MartinWhate2n) reported 9 minutes ago

  Trading conversations tied to #HQIExchange and #Bitstamp continue spreading warnings about blocked transfers and unresolved cashout delays. Quiet support can be requested directly.

• 
  Pinky (@PinkyndTheGainz) reported 10 minutes ago

  RH tokens paired with tokenized stocks are a fun idea in theory but an awful idea right now liquidity is so thin on most of these tokenized stocks that these new pairs are pushing tokenized stock price to 10x or more of the actual underlying so not only are you making a bet on the coin going up, you are essentially buying in at a 10x+ premium i havent done a lot of research into the tokenized stock mint/redemption mechanism for RH but presumably any authorized participant (bitstamp) can mint infinite tokens as long as its backed 1:1 by the underlying what happens when they do that? price gets arbed down closer to underlying and your token goes -90% even with no sell pressure GL

• 
  Martin Whately (@MartinWhate2n) reported 15 minutes ago

  ,,,,,, Trading conversations tied to #HQIExchange and #Bitstamp continue spreading warnings about blocked transfers and unresolved cashout delays. Quiet support can be requested directly…

• 
  Iso Ledger (@JamesDula82) reported 15 minutes ago

  Dark Defender posted "The Chart That Did Not Move." The claim: a Fibonacci structure drawn in September 2023, never redrawn, that called every major XRP level years ahead, including the exact bottom of the correction that just ended. Clean. Orderly. Floor held, surge followed, three confirmed closes, leverage "flushed out within a day." Here's what actually happened inside that window. On August 22, XRP printed a 37% wick on Bitstamp, from $1.697 down to $1.067 and back to $1.448, all inside one minute. Other venues like Kraken and OKX showed far smaller moves. It happened days after a 60%+ weekly rally that briefly topped $1.69. Market-wide liquidations hit roughly $1.35 billion in 24 hours, with about $500 million in longs cleared in the acute phase. XRP's own long liquidations that day were the largest since October 2025, per CryptoQuant, yet open interest still sat at $3.66 billion afterward, so calling it "flushed out" overstates how much leverage actually left. That entire event gets one line in the article. No 37%. No scale. The most violent single-venue move of the whole eight week "test" window gets reduced to a quiet cleanup. That's the surface problem. The deeper one is the method itself. Elliott Wave counts are built to be adjusted after the fact. The article says it outright: "we had an expanded Wave 4 which technically hit the lowest point. However the decline was all addressed by interpreting the Wave 4 expansion during this drop." The count didn't predict the drop. It got reshaped once the drop had already happened. Waves can extend, expand, truncate, or subdivide on demand, and nothing forces one interpretation until the candles have already closed. A structure that can absorb a 13 month decline, a surprise floor test, a 41% surge, and a 37% wick, and still call all of it "the plan working," isn't describing a plan. It's describing a chart flexible enough to fit almost any sequence of prices, provided you're allowed to relabel the waves after you already know what happened. The levels themselves roughly track real history. What's being sold is the certainty that "the map never changed." That only holds if you leave out the part where the market did something the map never warned anyone about, and the labeling got quietly stretched afterward to cover it. Verify the levels if you want. Just don't mistake a chart that can explain anything after it happens for a chart that told you anything before it did. We audit the plumbing 🛡 Link to his post 🤝 👇

• 
  The Fonz (@cryptofonzie) reported 17 minutes ago

  Again @bitstamp UK withdrawals not working as usual Customer Support will not give a straight answer

• 
  Classic (@Classicxbt) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Bitstamp Why list this garbage but not Kaspa?

• 
  Mysterious Doctor 📉📈📉. (@MysteriousDoct3) reported 22 minutes ago

  Buy the Exchange vs Build the Chain and decentralisation 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 Buy the Exchange vs Build the Chain $Robinhood with Bitstamp Bought 14 years of compliance. 50+ licenses. Instant UK access. Frontend = Robinhood. Backend = Bitstamp. Accounts still separate. Crypto comes to 20M users through regulation. $QUBIC Built Outsourced Computation. Roadmap → Mainnet. 1,455 invocations live. 451/676 Computors sign every action. Smart Contracts = Brain Oracles = Senses OC = Hands ← now acting No middleman. Just math. The difference: One bought infrastructure to fit the old system $Robinhood One built infrastructure for a new system. $Qubic Robinhood says " Distribution first". $QUBIC says Computation first. Most people will see Robinhood first. The agents will run on $QUBIC first. Which side are you on? Or are you on both sides ?

• 
  Onur 🍌🦍 (@0xc06) reported 22 minutes ago

  For years CEXs were the gatekeeper. On July 1, Europe put a gatekeeper above the gatekeeper. MiCA is live, and most of the exchanges you know did not make it through 👇🏻 ◢ One licence, one filter MiCA replaced 27 national rulebooks with a single EU licence to run a crypto exchange. Win it in one member state and you passport across all 27. Miss the deadline and serving EU users becomes illegal, with fines up to €15M or 12.5% of turnover. There was no extension and no soft landing. One date, one filter, 450 million users on the other side of it. ◢ A dozen left standing Start with the raw number: more than 1,200 firms held crypto registrations across the EU before MiCA. Around 210 converted to a full CASP licence. Of those, only about 14 can actually operate a trading platform. The rest are cleared to custody assets and little else. A licence to hold coins says nothing about the right to run a market, and that gap is where most of the field disappeared. ◢ The moat was always the price The barrier was never the paperwork itself. It was what the paperwork costs. Authorisation runs up to €2M in year one for an exchange-scale operation, then €250k or more every year to stay compliant. For a global exchange that is a rounding error. For a smaller one it is the end. A rule written as consumer protection works, in practice, as a wall that only the largest can climb. The field thins, and the survivors get bigger. ◢ You feel it at the account level If your platform missed the cut, deposits switch off, trading stops, and open positions can be liquidated at whatever price the market offers. Tokens that fail MiCA get pulled, and USDT is shut out of licensed EU venues entirely. Whole names vanish at once: KuCoin banned in Austria, MEXC and HTX unlicensed, Tether refusing to apply. What is left is the incumbents. Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Crypto, Bitstamp, Bitpanda. The ones who could pay to stay. ◢ My Personal Take MiCA got sold as protection, and some of that is genuinely real. Custody rules and capital requirements do shield users. But the same rulebook quietly handed 450 million people to about a dozen firms that could afford the ticket, and pushed everyone else out of the room. The exchange spent years deciding which tokens deserved a market. Now a regulator decides which exchanges deserve to exist. The listing fee did not disappear, it moved up a floor, and got a lot more expensive.

• 
  Martin O'Neal ~Crypto recovery expert (@martinoneal1) reported 23 minutes ago

  ,,,,,, Trading conversations tied to #HQIExchange and #Bitstamp continue spreading warnings about blocked transfers and unresolved cashout delays. Quiet support can be requested directly…

• 
  Midnight Investor (@MidnightInvestr) reported 24 minutes ago

  Robinhood doesn't understand the crypto market. After they acquired Bitstamp, they are now forcing those account to migrate to Robinhood. What's the problem you say? A lot of whales reside on Bitstamp. Not a good move by Robinhood and crypto as a whole.

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 25 minutes ago

  @dharmjack01 RE just had its TGE today with listings across Binance, Coinbase, OKX, Robinhood, Bitstamp, KuCoin. CB Ventures took a strategic position. price hit 53 cents earlier. the setup: onchain reinsurance is a $1T market that hasn't been touched. they're offering reUSD at 7% native APR plus 10% in RE rewards. Season 2 incentives running through December distributing 3.5% of FDV. sentiment is bullish short term based on the exchange blitz and RWA narrative momentum. tokenized treasuries just hit $14B onchain, regulatory frameworks opening up for institutional capital in tokenization. bull case: first mover in onchain reinsurance, institutional backing is clear from the listing coordination, competitive yield attracts stablecoin liquidity, perfectly timed with RWA trend that's actually delivering numbers bear case: reinsurance regulation is complex and global, smart contract risk on real world claims, needs massive capital to scale, token could see volatility from early exits despite the listings can't give you price targets. the valuation question is tough this early with limited market data on FDV and circulating supply. structural read: the coordination of those listings on day one of TGE plus CB Ventures backing shows serious market maker support. but success depends on regulatory execution and actually managing real world insurance risk onchain. the yield mechanism needs to prove sustainable under claims pressure.

• 
  The Fonz (@cryptofonzie) reported 25 minutes ago

  @SparkyAyaka @Bitstamp Hey. no fix here i’ve just tried now 5 days i had some email come through but they no good as timed out from attempts yesteday

• 
  Sagzee (@IAmSagzee) reported 28 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.