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:

• 
  Solana Sensei (@SolanaSensei) reported 8 minutes ago

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

• 
  DeepBlueAlpha (@DeepBlueAlpha) reported 13 minutes ago

  FLASHBACK 📜 10 years ago today — June 2, 2016 — the CFTC formally classified $BTC as a commodity in the Bitfinex enforcement order. That day, Bitcoin closed at $537.97. Today: $66,736. Even after a -6.32% red day, that's: ↳ +12,305% ↳ 124x over a decade ↳ $1.34T market cap The same agency that fined Bitfinex $75K then now sits alongside a spot BTC ETF complex worth ~$101B. On-chain, nothing gets deleted. We read the receipts every block. Follow the Whales → @DeepBlueAlpha

• 
  faizco. (@PhaResearcher) reported 18 minutes ago

  Bitcoin just hit a monthly high of $65,500. Nobody actually bought it there. That's not a typo. Look at what happened underneath the price. The day before this rally started, US spot Bitcoin ETFs sold about $425 million worth of bitcoin. Strategy bought nothing. Look at the Coinbase premium, the number that tells you whether American money is actually stepping in, is still negative. So what moved the price. A softer than expected inflation report. That single print cut the odds of a July rate hike from 42% down to around 12%, and bond yields dropped with it. Bitcoin didn't rally because people wanted bitcoin. It rallied because it's priced like every other risk asset right now, and every other risk asset just got a green light on rates. Bitfinex's own analysts have a name for this kind of move. Borrowed strength. Every real bitcoin uptrend in this cycle has had one thing in common, a buyer who shows up regardless of price, absorbing whatever gets sold into them. That buyer isn't here right now. What's here is a rate bet, and rate bets can reverse the moment the next data print disagrees with this one. This is the difference between a market that wants an asset and a market that's just borrowing someone else's optimism for a few days. One of those holds. The other one gets called back the second the mood changes. I'll be watching Friday's data for whether that buyer shows up. Worth bookmarking this one, because if the premium flips positive this week, that's the actual signal, not the price.

• 
  ~dorsen-witnes (@fazzam_eth) reported 19 minutes ago

  Really strong stuff. There’s a lot of precedent for successfully navigating an event like this in defi. Bitfinex repaid 36% of customer assets in 8 months and came back stronger than before. Euler lost $197M, made everyone whole, and relaunched bigger than it ever was. Crypto doesn't punish teams for getting hit but for leaving holes. This is textbook comms so far.

• 
  Not Another Quant (@notanotherquant) reported 21 minutes ago

  Is there any hope for the bitcoin:native bears? It may take a special event to do it. The Bull Market Support Band (BMSB 20W MA/21W EMA) acts as support during the bull and resistance during the bear. Currently Bitcoin has pushed up and closed above the BMSB. If a quick reversal isn't found the trend will shift into a bull. In a bull trend, the times it has been knocked below the BMSB have been due to a catalyst. In 2015 it was Bitfinex liquidations similar to October 10, 2025. In 2019 the Repo crisis made it oscillate around the band and it took the 2020 pandemic to dump us lower. In 2023 it was the banking crisis and Bitcoin wicked below the band to ~20k, but the chance only lasted days. Each time the recovery was quick and it was another chance to buy the bottom range. Will we get that chance again?

• 
  Colbert (@sirshibaninja) reported 21 minutes ago

  @bitfinex The slow bleed is always more painful than a quick flush, but at least we are finally seeing some signs of cooling off.

• 
  Bitcoin Regime (@BitPrintzz) reported 22 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @PositiveCrypto It’s cold card issue reshuffle nothing than that. Look into URPD instead

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 27 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!

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 30 minutes ago

  @CloakdDev @redacted_noah @VelocityDEX >If you lost 250m+ of your users money, then spent a **** tonne on talent aquisition & rebranding how can you not see that as a kick in the teeth compared to making your users whole. There literally is no other way to make users whole for them, the funds are lost and can't be recovered it seems, they need to try for a hail marry or bust, the remaining funds are the hailmary. Im on the outside with you btw, so idk lol A rebrand can work tho, bitfinex did this with LEO token. theres precedence to it working out for users. More USDT coming to Solana would be great too for everyone. Just seems like a good idea. >In terms of doing something different, nope would do the same thing as I had faith in the drift team & their leadership - when they failed to take accountability for their actions and negligence , that’s when the issue begins. I think simply by continuing to try, they are taking accountability, Also Noah has had a bunch of threads around it, and even days around the exploit they were pretty available on twitter, as far as w/e else legal wise they can or can't say is another story. Not sure if you've ever dealt with lawyers in these situations but comms can always be better and you're not going to satisfy everyone. Theres nuance to what you can say. They are trying more than other protocols i've seen. >You are essentially saying, as a fdn employee, is to forget about the past of where they got exploited twice, and instead play happy families in the dire hope they make 1/100th of the funds back - that’s so detached from reality when pretty much all users of drift will never touch the protocol again. listen i get it, I work for the foundation, but this is just my opinion man, my work affiliation means nothing im simply another dude like you. >You seem to think I’m miserable when in reality I’m just looking at the reality of the situation where a team failed and was hugely negligent which then caused huge losses for their users, they then tried to bury it in terrible marketing blurb to save their egos Honestly i don't even know you, i have no idea if you're miserable or not. You create you're own reality tho, im saying you can see a team that was negligent, caused huge losses etc, or you can see a team trying to make this right for users with actual effort and not just just down and lose it all. Im a glass half full guy, no glass half empty. >When you loose 7 figures due to gross negligence of individuals let me know how you feel & then we can talk about it - until then your way out of your depth weighing into this and telling the users to “eat dirt” Maybe didnt lose it to gross negligence but we at least were able to pay back everyone and make users whole, that did kill the protocol tho and people didnt care to use anymore, I bet if we put efforts in rebrand/UA it could have benefited. It's one reason i think the rebrand actually is beneficial. its not about brining your old uesrs back, its about bringing in new users here.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 34 minutes ago

  Review: Major Institutions' Bitcoin Bottom Price Predictions for This Cycle Major institutional assessments of Bitcoin’s cycle bottom cluster mainly in two ranges: $50,000–$60,000 and $40,000–$46,000. However, some figures are base-case bottom forecasts, while others represent valuation floors, support levels or bearish scenarios. Standard Chartered said $59,000 may have marked the bottom; CryptoQuant, NYDIG and Citi identified key levels near $53,000–$54,000; 10x Research’s latest model pointed to $46,628–$50,732; and Galaxy Research placed its base-case bottom at $40,000–$46,000. Bitfinex and 22V Research also identified potential downside toward $40,000 under weaker demand or a decisive support break, while forecasts below $40,000 mostly reflect prolonged bear-market, recession or severe stress scenarios. Forecasts from industry figures are more dispersed, ranging from around $57,000 to below $30,000. Overall, there is no unified institutional consensus that Bitcoin will bottom at $44,000–$46,000.

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 38 minutes ago

  And the reason why Tether does not support Ethereum even though it uses the Ethereum network for stablecoin transactions is because Tether is owned by the same people who own Bitfinex, a Crypto exchange, which is a third party

• 
  Strategy Trader (@strategytraderE) reported 43 minutes ago

  @Karman_1s BNB support fails but Bitfinex BTC longs grow, alt weakness, not isolated crash.

• 
  Trout (@BigTrout300) reported 44 minutes ago

  Twap/Scale with BT300 I was shorting a massive massive amount of BTC thru the 70s, on a scale/add in limit. 1. When you have conviction, know a market is coming into resistance, pick a decent leverage point where you're comfortable sizing. (similar on the long side) 2. Let's say I am short 3x at 76k, and I know the market is gonna stop within 10k price (86k being max range), I will scale in ontop of my order starting at 76k, all the way to 86k. so it looks like: $100k position, 10% of Port. Enter 76k $50k, scale limit 76.5k - 86k. (200d SMA was target) additional $50k ($100k total position size) is scaled in. (Ai generated image for example) 3. Use other factors like a vwap, moving average, tpo, delta, order books, metrics to help validate this thesis. (IE I was watching USDT.D, ATH VWAP & Bitfinex longs) 4. You can do this with longs too. When breadth flashes in the SPX, CTAs start going, the trend is gonna be up.. asset isnt as flimsey as a single stock, penny stock or a dogshit alt coin. 5. Once you understand the BitFinex long rate ****, you will understand their intial position, and why they size it when the market pulls back (They're already long sub 30k, they can begin filling) 6. Using this scale method, also brings your liquidation point lower (because you're scaling) so if price goes up/down, you have a free-er chance of getting out at less loss, + you might actually go in profit sooner.

• 
  Thomas (@ThomasOyxxx) reported 49 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

• 
  SkyGecko❄️ (@skygecko_) reported 50 minutes ago

  One thing Apple shares, Brazilian credit, and $1.6B worth of nickel had in common this week is that... They all became part of the onchain financial system. The market has moved beyond the usual Treasury narrative, with tokenized stocks, commodities and real-world credit becoming increasingly usable across DeFi. Here’s what happened: → Coinbase tokenized U.S. stocks on Base Apple, Nvidia, Meta and Alphabet are now available to eligible non-U.S. users, backed 1:1 by real shares. They can trade 24/7 and connect with protocols like Aave, Morpho and Euler. The stock doesn’t just sit onchain, it can be used. → $50M of nickel was tokenized Bitfinex Securities completed a $50M raise tied to ~7M meters of 99.99% pure nickel stored in Switzerland and valued at ~$1.64B. Physical commodities are becoming financial products people can access digitally. → Brazilian credit entered RWA Earn Bybit added nOPAL, a tokenized Brazilian credit-card receivables strategy with $70M+ TVL and a reported ~12% 30-day rolling yield. → Trade finance moved beyond the pilot stage POSCO International completed a live tokenized trade-receivables transaction where verified invoices and shipping documents were used to support an actual financing deal. Meanwhile, tokenized RWA value sits around $38B with holders around 3M. RWA is slowly becoming more about making aseets useful once they come onchain.

• 
  - ,, berrygummy🧸 ·˚ ༘ ꒱ (@inipitriii) reported 50 minutes ago

  Analysts predict Bitcoin Bitfinex Longs chart trend, indicating potential market shifts. Monitoring these signals can help traders make informed decisions. Will Bitcoin's trend continue upward or reverse? #Crypto #Bitcoin #Trading

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 51 minutes ago

  @stevensarmi @redacted_noah @VelocityDEX I think the reality is they should of shuttered and used remaining funds to make as many users as possible whole - Sure you can pray for a hail mary but i just think too much damage has been done at this point & comes at the cost of making less users whole. The whole USDT thing is just predatory tbh, they saw a weak protocol as a way to get some easy marketing without having to risk anything (Even using pre-hack volumes there was little to no rev coming in to ever make a sizable whole in the 250m) Good point on bitfinex, i think they had a much better approach though. The comms etc coming out of drift at the moment sound like they are being written by some tone deaf external marketing agency. How long did it take for bitfinex to recover? Yup everyone is entitled to their oppinion but you do hold a position of authority on the L1 so it has additional weight compared to others. Just came across badly reading it as a user (cynic) that i should go eat dirt for voicing an oppinion. I see the reality of the situation from almost 20 years of experience at this level, im not half empty/full ive just seen enough at this point its very easy to see the wood from the trees in regards to issues like that. I prefer to be pragmatic when it comes to money. Sure i would love to be like "yeah go drift, your doing an amazing job woooo" - but again the reality is that they arent, the sequence of events from the hack onwards shows their intentions pretty clearly tbh. Lack of accountability from the core team (hence the external marketing agency), rebrand to hide the bad debt etc. I think the lack of accountability is the big one tbh - Realistically the old team should step down if its got any hope of recovery as at the end of the day they were responsible for the loss so should pass the torch to someone not found to be negligent. No amount of procedure is going to bring back that trust unfortunately. Its admiral you made your users whole, and tbh i think once a hack of this scale has been done the protocol is pretty much a dead man walking so sacrificing the ego of the protocol for their users seems like a logical trade. The whole new users thing i dont really buy, we know there is what max 30k traders, all hopping across the same 5 apps - With the current narrative new users, if they came in would land on Phoenix/Flash etc. Anyone trading in size (which is what they need for rev) will do their due dilligence and see the hacks and never touch it - its simply too much of a risk at this point. I have a huge amount of faith in Noah but unfortunately this isnt a tech problem, its a people/trust problem which isnt going to be solved with a rebrand. When you look at it from a tradeoff perspective - Unless something dramatic changes the protocol will probs run for 6/12 months until runway is out and then they will shutter anyway. All of that funding realistically should be going to making users whole as the writing seems on the wall logically. 10 years rebuild time is just too long of a time horizon for it to logically work given this is mostly an attention economy & with new competitors entering the market which are better funded, trusted & unhindered by what has been. They just arent going to win in that arena. They are just in a really tricky spot tbh, and as sad as it is to say, shuttering the protocol or raising a tonne of fresh funding seems to be the only way this one survives. Everything else is just a half measure

• 
  Ari Paul (@AriDavidPaul) reported 53 minutes ago

  @nic_carter At least two of crypto’s biggest successful institutions were ponzis at points in time. Both seem today to have more than fully recovered their assets. With bitfinex-tether I think this is pretty public knowledge at this point: at one point bitfinex was insolvent and recapitalized with tether, and vice versa, so at various points each was in a ponzi state. But profits flowed, and all worked out. The principals wanted/hope for this to happen, rather than their customers eat the losses, their business fail, and possible criminal charges. IMO, this is all unethical and illegal, but…a lot less malicious and unethical than people who run ponzis intending to exit scam. The other example is more controversial - Binance. We know customer funds were transferred from the exchange to a private trading account and gambled with (on-chain forensics, public reporting). Presumably repaid later with winnings. Why did CZ do that? I assume the same reason he’s still running pumps and dumps as the world’s richest felon.

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 54 minutes ago

  @notoriousxfree @QuintenFrancois btc down 40% from ath with etf outflows but Strategy and bitfinex whale stacking AI tokens like VVV up 900%+ ytd rotation is real but capitulation setups can reverse fast when sidelined capital has nowhere left to chase

• 
  umo (@0xumo) reported 56 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Terrible timing. Blocking this crap account

• 
  clav (@marsclavie) reported 57 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

• 
  Seabass On-Chain (@SeabassCity) reported 58 minutes ago

  @CryptoGirlNova @bitfinex Chances are degens are too slow to understand macro factors

• 
  Mrbankstips Parody (@Mrbvnkstips) reported 59 minutes ago

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

• 
  Kemo (@K3m0s) reported 59 minutes ago

  @tobitdogg @BitQua Not on Tradingview BTCUSD INDEX, CRYPTO, or Bitfinex charts. Their 2015 bear = 90 weeks & 2016-17 bull is 121. Bitfinex was the #1 exchange by volume outside China, whose exchanges were shut down and excluded from data. i.e. you have to ignore the #1 data source to get this

• 
  Ajay Khosla (@Kenny_Khosla) reported 1 hour ago

  Bitcoin: $63.7K. This week's rally to $65K was a macro trade, not a crypto one — per Bitfinex, driven by the CPI-triggered Fed repricing (hike odds 42%→12%), not fresh BTC demand. Evidence: ETFs sold $425M right before CPI, Strategy bought nothing, and the Coinbase premium's still negative. Meanwhile, the real story today is AI stocks — the semiconductor ETF (SOXX) is down 17.6% since July 1, with Micron, SanDisk, Intel all down 4-8% just today. Bitcoin's pullback looks tame by comparison.

• 
  Thomas (@ThomasOyxxx) reported 1 hour 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

• 
  netrunner (@netrunner_btc) reported 1 hour ago

  @bitfinex whitepaper never says it but satoshi did use "block chain" (two words) on bitcointalk by 2010

• 
  Rahul K (@iamrahulinc) reported 1 hour ago

  🚨𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗘 𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗭𝗘𝗦 𝟮𝟱 𝗟𝗜𝗕𝗥𝗔‑𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗦! Federal judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi ordered the seizure of 25 crypto wallets linked to the LIBRA investigation. He instructed Binance, Bybit, OKX, CoinEx, FixedFloat and Bitfinex to provide user KYC, IP login data, associated bank accounts and complete transaction histories. Police report that the money flowed from “Team Libra Wallets” across several blockchains and centralized exchanges, using split transfers to mask its path. $BTC

• 
  Filzahanis (@bloom_pegnmk6) reported 1 hour ago

  @wangxianbun @bitfinex The real innovation was solving double-spend without trusted intermediaries, but yeah we spent a decade letting VCs convince grandma that "blockchain" could fix everything from supply chains to potato provenance

• 
  Slevin Kelevra ✡︎ ☦︎ (@kruper47) reported 1 hour ago

  Sometimes we'll dive into history to better understand market context. Who's connected to whom and how it all started In July 2014, three developers launched Realcoin: a token priced at exactly one dollar. The task was narrow - give traders a way to move money between exchanges, bypassing banks that barely serviced crypto back then They didn't create their own blockchain. They issued tokens through Omni Layer, an overlay on top of bitcoin that allowed recording the issuance and transfers of your own assets right inside bitcoin transactions: you didn't need to build your own registry and network security, you took both from bitcoin. On October 6, they minted the first 100 USDT, in November the project was renamed to Tether The scheme was limited by bitcoin itself, each USDT transfer went at the speed of its block and its commission. So USDT moved to Ethereum, then to Tron, then Solana, Avalanche, Polygon and dozens of networks, and Omni was shut down Bitfinex decided the project's fate. USDT started trading there in early 2015, the exchange became the main distribution channel, the founders stepped back, control passed to the exchange owner. By the end of the decade, USDT was already the settlement unit of the entire crypto market Since late 2023, the company has been run by Paolo Ardoino, who came from that same Bitfinex team Currently in circulation is around $183 billion, that's 55-65% of the stablecoin market. Reserves of 187-192 billion, of which about 140 billion in short-term US Treasuries. By the volume of American government debt, Tether is in the top-20 holders in the world Interest on these securities is the entire business, holders of USDT don't get it. $13 billion net profit in 2024, over 10 billion in 2025, with a staff of about 300 people Wall Street came here in late 2024. The old New York investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald bought rights to about 5% of Tether for 600 million, when the entire company was valued at 12 billion. Today it's valued at 200-375 billion, and that same stake is already worth more than ten billion. Cantor also stores a significant portion of those very Treasuries, and its former head meanwhile became US Secretary of Commerce The profit from interest goes into a portfolio worth tens of billions, and it's long been not about crypto. An almost controlling stake in Rumble, an American video platform for those who don't like YouTube's moderation. Control in a South American agro-holding that grows sugar cane and rice. Data centers for AI, a company making brain implants, the second largest stake in Juventus The ownership structure is closed, though. The largest shareholder holds 40-45%, headquarters moved to San Salvador, the team is mostly remote And so in 2026 the company went through a full financial audit for the first time. Before that they only showed attestations, statements about the state of accounts on a specific date, without checking the entire reporting and obligations. KPMG checked the entire balance sheet, including issued tokens, and physically recounted each gold bar in the reserves The conclusion is unqualified - it's the most positive form of auditor's opinion. As of the end of 2025, reserves exceed liabilities by $6.814 billion The company that spent ten years being accused of having nothing behind its tokens is now lending to the American government at the level of a mid-sized country