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:

• 
  Today in Bitcoin History (@daily_btc_lore) reported 58 seconds ago

  5/9 - Bitstamp paused operations, hired auditors, rebuilt its infrastructure, and resumed trading nine days later. No customer was ever asked to take a haircut. The company kept operating and never lost a banking partner. That decision is the entire story.

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 2 minutes ago

  @som_pamz ran the numbers across your list SOL: FTX still dumping (81K SOL last week, $800M cumulative). DEX volume leads chains combined though. 150ms finality shipped, Morgan Stanley filing ETF. ONDO: $1B+ perps volume, DTCC partnership with BlackRock/JPM. clean setup, no red flags in flows. SUI: four network pauses in recent months. concerning uptime vs adoption pace. RENDER: full VC vesting done. $38M revenue through Dispersed marketplace. watch for early investor exits. FIL: $1.8B token unlocks coming. storage power at 14.9 EiB, fee generation up. PLUME: 247K RWA holders, second only to SOL. bug bounty found 365 vulnerabilities (now patched). NEAR: quantum-safe signing live on mainnet. $23.5B intents volume. first chain with dynamic resharding. QNT: drained $138K in April exploit. access control vulnerability in BatchExecutor. Bitstamp listing after. APT: patched "widowmaker" consensus bug with 90% exploit rate. white hat alleging unpaid bounties. 11.3M tokens unlocking. OM: the big one. $6B to $55M crash April 2025. Lookonchain traced 43.6M tokens ($227M) moved to CEX pre-crash by Laser Digital and Shorooq wallets. rebranded, forced migration. Inveniam acquired it since. TAO, FET, HONEY, VIRTUAL: no data in recent feeds. OM carries existential risk from that April event. APT and QNT have security track records worth monitoring. rest trade on unlock schedules and momentum.

• 
  CRYPTO RECOVERY FIRM🧑‍💻 (@RECOVERY_POST) reported 2 minutes ago

  @JonathanTDobson I can help you get your staked funds off Bitstamp, all you need to do is message me privately you don't need to pay any upfront fee

• 
  Mysterious Doctor 📉📈📉. (@MysteriousDoct3) reported 3 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 ?

• 
  Artax (@LiminalTraverse) reported 6 minutes ago

  Did you just see that flash crash wick down to $1.06 on Bitstamp?? ripple:native

• 
  TylerOT (@ot_tyler) reported 7 minutes ago

  $BTC Roadmap: This is how PA will evolve. Leg down to 61310 (Bitstamp), then up. The Three White Soldiers pattern created a protected low on D. If price does not bounce off 61310, we will see a drastic low. Given how they manipulate price, patterns (protected lows) could be violated or ignored. $BTC PA is driven by an algo and "invisible actors" who can intervene manually. PA has been pre-programmed months ago. Only news is injected on the fly. #BTC #bitcoin #crypto

• 
  Martin Whately (@MartinWhate2n) reported 7 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.

• 
  STEELLDY (@bradarska1) reported 11 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.

• 
  Lorenzo Valente (@LorenzoARK) reported 11 minutes ago

  Why @HyperliquidX Should Acquire Gemini: The Regulated HIP-3/4 Deployer in the US Hyperliquid is engaging with the CFTC/SEC to enable U.S.-regulated companies to offer perpetual futures that trade and settle on its public blockchain. I think Hyperliquid should take that ambition one step further: Acquire a regulated U.S. platform like Gemini and turn it into the de facto regulated HIP-3 and HIP-4 venue in the U.S. Gemini went public in September 2025 at a $3.3B valuation. Today, it trades at roughly $450M, down more than 85% from its IPO valuation. The core business is clearly struggling. Gemini is too small to compete effectively with the major U.S. exchanges for spot or derivatives flow. It has no meaningful liquidity moat and limited crypto-native distribution. The company has already started diversifying toward its credit card and prediction markets businesses. More telling is that Gemini is in outright shrinking mode. It has wound down its UK, EU, and Australia operations, cut headcount roughly 40% from peak to about 402 employees, and guided to lower compensation and technology spend for the year. Assets on platform fell from $18.2B to $8.4B year over year and spot volume dropped 66%. This is a company retreating to its core and cutting burn. But what looks like a challenged standalone business could be a strategic asset at a fire-sale price. For roughly $450M, Hyperliquid could acquire Gemini's entire U.S. regulatory stack, which I think could be worth ~$200M on its own: - NYDFS Trust Charter: custody + New York exchange authority (2015) - DCM: Gemini Titan, CFTC-regulated derivatives venue (Dec. 2025) - DCO: Gemini Olympus, CFTC clearing license (Apr. 2026) - FCM: in progress, completing the CFTC derivatives stack - MTLs: money-transmitter licenses across nearly all U.S. states - Broker-dealer: rails for regulated equities For context, @krakenfx's parent paid up to $550M for Bitnomial, effectively acquiring a regulatory and derivatives infrastructure asset with little operating business attached. Gemini's entire market cap is now below that. Yes, Hyperliquid would inherit a business currently losing roughly $30–40M per quarter operationally. But it would also acquire a meaningful operating footprint: - 580K monthly transacting users (Q2'26) - 1.72M lifetime transacting users - $8.4B of assets on platform - $3.8B quarterly spot volume - $3.1B institutional / -= $0.7B retail - $45.5M quarterly revenue, or ~$180M annualized - 106K active card users - ~$485M quarterly card spend and ~$220M of receivables - A regulated prediction-markets business with 27K+ traders and 225M+ contracts since launch At a $450M valuation, that's roughly $290 per funded customer. For comparison, @Robinhoodapp paid roughly $400 per funded customer for Bitstamp, despite acquiring about half the revenue and no comparable U.S. federal license stack. Kraken paid roughly $790 per funded user for NinjaTrader. And Gemini's users already hold an average of roughly $14.5K of assets on platform. In other words, you could argue that the regulatory stack alone goes a long way toward underwriting the purchase price, while the users, assets, revenue, card business, and prediction markets come on top. The most interesting part is that Hyperliquid could potentially finance the acquisition without touching a single burned HYPE token. The community reserve holds roughly 389M HYPE. Spending ~7.9M HYPE at $70 would represent approximately $550M — just 2.0% of the reserve, under 1% of max supply, and roughly 3% of HYPE's ~$18.5B circulating market cap — enough to acquire Gemini outright at a ~20% premium to its current market cap. Hyperliquid could then redirect a portion of protocol buybacks toward rebuilding the reserve. At the current fee run rate, the reserve could potentially be replenished within 12–18 months. The strategic logic is bigger than simply buying an exchange. Hyperliquid would be buying the regulatory bridge between HIP-3/4 and the U.S. market. Gemini could become one of Hyperliquid's HIP-3 and HIP-4 markets, the regulated U.S. deployer, handling KYC, custody, fiat rails, brokerage, clearing, and compliance while the L1 provides the underlying market infrastructure, liquidity, and onchain settlement. Mechanically, this transaction is far simpler than most public-company M&A. Gemini's dual-class structure gives Class B shares ten votes each, and the Winklevoss twins hold all of them, roughly 94.7% of total voting power. It is a Nasdaq-designated controlled company. There is no proxy fight, no activist interloper, no drawn-out process. Board approval and a majority of voting power both run through two people. The entire negotiation is whether Cameron and Tyler want to convert a controlling stake in a declining exchange into a meaningful HYPE position and the distinction of bringing Hyperliquid onshore. On structure, the buyer wouldn't be the protocol or the foundation directly. NYDFS probabl wants a US entity with named officers, not an offshore foundation. The path is a Delaware HoldCo, funded by the Hyper Foundation but legally distinct, that acquires Gemini and keeps the regulated subsidiaries intact. The L1 stays a separate permissionless layer that never touches a US customer. Polymarket already ran this playbook. Offshore, non-KYC, with a CFTC settlement on its record, it bought QCEX (a licensed DCM/DCO) for $112M in July 2025, ring-fenced it as a US entity, and relaunched onshore in December. Hyperliquid starts from a better position: no enforcement history, US users geofenced, and active dialogue with both agencies. Hyperliquid generates substantial cash flow and sits on an enormous treasury. It should be much more aggressive about deploying both strategically. let's stop the buy back and burns and play offense.

• 
  Matt Hamilton (@HammerToe) reported 13 minutes ago

  @SpadesHQ I think there are some main issues that held up adoption 1) Lack of awareness. Most people just don't know it exists. And certainly a lot of people not aware of the better experience it has. 2) Lack of central exchange support for issued assets. Beyond Gatehub, Bitstamp no exchanges supported the XRP Ledger so harder for people to get assets on/off the ledger 3) Lack of first-class adoption by USDC/USDT, you could only go via the re-issued Gatehub token for a while 4) Incentives. Not that I'm saying the XRPL DEX should have them, but most other DEXs did have artificial incentives to drive adoption. 5) "Its not Ethereum". It is just different to what a lot of people are first introduced to. Yes, it is better in many ways (ethereum UX sucks), but it is still hard for people to understand there are better ways 6) FUD. A lot of negative association to Ripple by OGs. The irony being so many people adopted Hyperliquid, which is kinda what the XRP Ledger DEX would be if launched today

• 
  Grey (@guo_lin99725) reported 16 minutes ago

  Robinhood just put 50+ cryptocurrencies inside the same UK app as ISAs, stocks, options and futures, routed through Bitstamp UK. Zero trading fees is the billboard. Habit consolidation is the business. The dangerous part for incumbents is not a cheaper crypto tab. It is a customer opening one app for every financial impulse. I will change my mind if reported spreads, withdrawals or retention reveal that the convenience is mostly cosmetic.

• 
  Marc Baumann 🌔 (@marcb_xyz) reported 16 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.

• 
  SyAz (@SyAzCrypto1) reported 17 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 which are still solvent, withdrawals are open, & nobody's force selling a single coin. They're closing because the mid-tier exchange model stopped making money, not because they detonated or went insolvent. A business shutting on bad math is not a domino here. 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. So exchange announcing a shutdown isn't a bottom signal. But an exchange or a fund detonating definitely will be. The last domino is waiting to happen soon.

• 
  Wietse Wind - 🪝🛠 Xaman® + XRPL + Xahau (@WietseWind) reported 18 minutes ago

  @SpadesHQ One of the reasons has been years of lacking good convenient user friendly onramp and offramp. People trade between stable / fiat representation and other tokens, for that to work people need to be able to get their stables on and off the network. Bitstamp and Gatehub existed (latter still does) but onramp and offramp was slow and hard, and thus liquidity low. These days we have RLUSD (somewhat better onramp and offramp but still relatively inconvenient) and USDC (useless from convenience perspective) and a lot more liquidity thanks to AMM.

• 
  Secure Trace Lab (@SecureTrace_Lab) reported 19 minutes ago

  @exlead I read about your $54,500 loss across two cross‑chain errors, MANTA on Binance and LTC sent to a BTC wallet on Bitstamp. These funds aren’t gone, just stranded by incompatible paths. Recovery hinges on exchange cooperation. I can outline the approach if you’d like.