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:

• 
  Whistleblower (@whistleblowerTA) reported 4 minutes ago

  Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer in the crypto industry, currently has a market capitalization of around $184 billion. According to publicly available data, it was the 7th-largest net buyer of U.S. Treasury bills in 2024 and is on track to become one of the top 10 purchasers of U.S. T-bills in 2026. Tether's demand for Treasury bills helps finance U.S. government debt. What's surprising is that Tether has existed for 14 years, yet it still has not published a full independent audit proving that all USDT tokens are fully backed by reserves. But in March 2026, Tether engaged KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, to conduct its first full independent financial statement audit covering USDT reserves and the company's financials. KPMG is not infallible, no auditor is. However, it is generally considered far more credible than smaller accounting firms. There have also been notable audit failures involving KPMG, including: - Wirecard (Germany, 2020): KPMG was involved in reviewing a company that later collapsed after a €1.9 billion accounting fraud was uncovered. - Carillion (UK, 2018): KPMG faced criticism over its audit work before the construction giant went bankrupt. - KPMG has also faced regulatory fines from authorities such as the U.S. SEC and the UK's FCA over deficiencies in certain audits. Although KPMG's involvement could significantly strengthen confidence in Tether, it should not be viewed as proof of perfection. For years, Tether changed statements on its own website, including earlier claims that every USDT token was fully backed by U.S. dollars. Tether is also closely connected to the Bitfinex exchange, with both companies sharing common ownership. In 2018, Tether arranged a "verification" by Friedman LLP. The day before the verification, Bitfinex transferred approximately $382 million to Tether's bank account to demonstrate reserves, and the funds were moved out shortly afterward. These events were later confirmed during investigations by the New York Attorney General (NYAG) and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which resulted in regulatory fines. Tether and Bitfinex ultimately paid $18.5 million and $41 million in fines, respectively, related to misleading statements about reserve backing and other regulatory violations. Tether also faces significant regulatory pressure in the European Union and has not obtained authorization under the MiCA regulatory framework, leading to restrictions on its availability in parts of the EU. Tether remains one of the most controversial companies in the cryptocurrency industry, yet it also plays a crucial role in providing liquidity across the crypto market.

• 
  Seabass On-Chain (@SeabassCity) reported 4 minutes ago

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

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 7 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 16 minutes ago

  June 2026 Exchange Data Report: Spot Volume Fell 5.1%, Derivatives Volume Rose 4.2%, Website Traffic Fell 0.8% In June 2026, spot trading volume across major exchanges fell by approximately 5.1% from May. Bitfinex recorded the largest increase, up 21.4%, while BitMart recorded the largest decline, down 58.6%. Derivatives trading volume rose by approximately 4.2% from May. Deribit recorded the largest increase, up 26.6%, while HTX recorded the largest decline, down 42.4%. Traffic to major exchange websites fell by approximately 0.8% from May. Deribit recorded the largest increase, up 165.1%, while HTX recorded the largest decline, down 50.8%.

• 
  Gain (@GainMaxxing) reported 18 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Bitcoin is broken money, fiat is fake money.

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 18 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

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 20 minutes ago

  Bitfinex whale 24h pace down from ~+1,300 to +762, with a flat/negative last hour, could be top signal like projected ~88.4K BTC, +11%, day 18 last time it quit buying Bitcoin gained +20%

• 
  Velvet Unicorn (@VU_virtuals) reported 20 minutes ago

  ZEC: zebra 4.5.3/5.0.0 shipped to patch a critical orchard circuit bug; 4.5.3 temporarily disables orchard via emergency soft fork. whales: 4x768 BTC off coinbase insto; 108.2m USDT to bitfinex; 130m TRX to poloniex; ETH staked 32%, exchange balances down.

• 
  clav (@marsclavie) reported 23 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

• 
  Strategy Trader (@strategytraderE) reported 25 minutes ago

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

• 
  DA₿OLOSKOV (@daboloskov) reported 25 minutes ago

  @BFXSecurities @paoloardoino @bitfinex Are you guys can answer to your customer? Your support form certificate is no signed anymore and outdated.

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 28 minutes ago

  @materkel It's self interest - Brian knows that a Crypto with high TPS will eventually replace Coinbase because it is a third party intermediary in transactions Almost every crypto exchange has compromised financial freedom because they're third parties, which is why they support BTC or made their own blockchain - Binance, Tether/Bitfinex, Bybit, okx, etc “Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as TRUSTED THIRD PARTIES to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model… What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY.” - Satoshi Nakamoto

• 
  TradingArgento (@TradingArgent0) reported 31 minutes ago

  @bitfinex No, it will retrace to the key level of 72k, a support zone.

• 
  umo (@0xumo) reported 32 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Terrible timing. Blocking this crap account

• 
  donnie (@blackhack33) reported 33 minutes ago

  9/12 And exchange support hasn’t been perfect either. Bitfinex officially delisted GALA in March 2026, with withdrawals closing in May. That doesn’t prove fraud — exchanges delist tokens for many reasons. But it is an actual GALA delisting, not an X rumour.

• 
  Rob Leder 🟥 (@rleder) reported 34 minutes ago

  @romanwagmi @notgrubles The first guy used a paid account with a public blockstream explorer. I’d bet they are circling in on him. The follow-ons need to be smart enough not to screw up going forward. The Bitfinex hackers were caught after 6 years. People get lazy and make mistakes, which you can’t do when a 3-letter agency has a task force specifically dedicated to hunting you down.

• 
  The Bull Q🐂 (@TheBull1123) reported 34 minutes ago

  🚨SOMEONE JUST OPENED A $16,000,000 $XRP LONG. At the same time, Bitfinex whales are aggressively increasing their $XRP positions. Wtf is going on???

• 
  Spike (@NotSpikeG) reported 36 minutes ago

  @Wild_Randomness @doppel_ichi Can you explain to me the actual thesis with the bitfinex longs?Its funny how its working spot on most of the times.

• 
  PaperImperium (@ImperiumPaper) reported 37 minutes ago

  Thoughts: First, congratulations to Tether! Second, note this is for Tether International, S.A. de C.V. and NOT for the parent Tether Holdings, S.A. de C.V. For USDT holders, this is mostly what matters, but does not close off hypothetical scenarios where the parent company is burning down while the issuer entity stays clean. In theory, there’s corporate separation (subject to El Salvador’s laws, which I do not know). In practice, even without shenanigans, a parent entity that Has A Bad Time could dividend out all the excess reserves at any time, reducing the equity to zero. This could be to meet a margin call, tax obligation, whatever the parent needs money for. A distressed parent can also encourage the issuer to hold assets from or extend loans to affiliates (of which there are many with all the investments Tether Holdings makes) or up to the parent. And in fact loans from Tether to Bitfinex to cover a shortfall were the heart of a conflict with the NY attorney general in 2019. So if you’re the kind of counterparty that actually cares about an audit on Tether, you 1) want to see this audit, 2) want to look for related party transactions and loans, 3) look for any covenants or governance controls to keep the parent’s problems from becoming the issuer entity’s problems.

• 
  Mandelbrot (@Wild_Randomness) reported 43 minutes ago

  @NotSpikeG @LunaticxOsmo That’s trading fellas— I spoonfed every single one of you the 82->60k move, I even came at every micro bounce to stay short along the way I publicly tweeted my sub 60k short covers, and then did the same this week at 60.8 Bullposted 61s when bitfinex twap slowed down Cmon…

• 
  Slade 🛡️ LLM Hacker (@llm_redteam) reported 45 minutes ago

  @btcliveco spot down, derivs up, traffic down. that's not a market getting bigger, it's the same crowd rolling the same money through more leverage. Bitfinex printing +21.4% spot while everyone else bleeds is the only real signal here.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 46 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.

• 
  Crypto Noob (@cryptonoobini) reported 47 minutes ago

  @bitfinex capital settling in utility says more than a meme spike slow money sticking around is the real tell

• 
  lil retard (@comic) reported 48 minutes ago

  @theswansjr I bought my first stack of BTC in 2013 at $300. Lost 100+ BTC to mtgox and bitfinex hacks I’ve been a long term believer but the narrative isn’t intact anymore. Performance has been terrible. Taken over by grifters. Your capital is better invested in high growth companies with defensible technology’s

• 
  DMT-NAT 小果果（晨曦） (@nat_xgg2288) reported 48 minutes ago

  @fiatarchive Remaining BTC Supply Projection April 2026 Remaining: 984,370 coins (Block reward per block: 3.125 BTC) April 2027 Remaining: 820,310 coins (Block reward per block: 3.125 BTC) April 2028 Remaining: 656,250 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2029 Remaining: 574,210 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2030 Remaining: 492,180 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2031 Remaining: 410,150 coins (Block reward per block: 1.5625 BTC) April 2032 Remaining: 328,120 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2033 Remaining: 287,100 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2034 Remaining: 246,090 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2035 Remaining: 205,070 coins (Block reward per block: 0.78125 BTC) April 2036 Remaining: 164,060 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2037 Remaining: 143,550 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2038 Remaining: 123,040 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2039 Remaining: 102,530 coins (Block reward per block: 0.390625 BTC) April 2040 Remaining: 82,030 coins (Block reward per block: 0.1953125 BTC) By the completion of the 7th halving (projected April 2036): Total Bitcoin minted: 20,835,937.5 coins Total Bitcoin left unmined: 164,062.5 coins This means that by April 2036, 99.22% of Bitcoin’s total supply will have been fully mined. The gradual depletion of block rewards is hardcoded into Bitcoin’s protocol and can be calculated with absolute precision, yet most people fail to grasp this reality, refuse to believe it, or simply deny this inevitable outcome. Let us break down a critical question: Can Bitcoin sustain steady operation all the way to the 7th halving in April 2036 relying solely on its current block reward model? A simple cost analysis lays bare the issue. The current mining cost per Bitcoin stands at roughly $75,000. After three more halvings, mining costs will surge eightfold, pushing the cost per coin to $600,000. At that price point, Bitcoin’s overall total market capitalization would need to top $12 trillion. By contrast, the total hardware value of all Bitcoin mining rigs across the globe is only around $7 billion. How can a $12 trillion market be supported by merely $7 billion worth of mining hardware? This is utterly illogical and devoid of basic market sense. Are all institutional investors and capitalists in this space ignorant or irrational? This scenario completely defies commercial logic and fundamental capital principles. Scaling up network hash rate will only drive mining costs higher, amplify operational losses, and accelerate the onset of a death spiral. This is an unsolvable dead end under the existing rules—there is only one fix: expand block reward supply. The solution: #NAT #NAT is a native asset built directly on the Bitcoin mainchain. It shares identical hash power, blockchain, block generation cycle and wallet address system with Bitcoin, minting synchronously every ten minutes within each block. It functions as the secondary native asset minted in parallel within every Bitcoin block, Bitcoin’s twin asset sharing the same foundational blockchain infrastructure. Two of the world’s top 4 mining pools, SpiderPool and F2Pool, have already begun distributing #NAT to miners. The entities with the most to lose are the major Bitcoin holders ranked below: 1. Coinbase (Exchange + ETF custody): 976,000 BTC ​ 2. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy, public listed firm): 845,300 BTC (Latest financial filing update, June 8) ​ 3. BlackRock IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Spot ETF): 817,100 BTC ​ 4. Binance (User exchange reserves): 631,000 BTC ​ 5. BTC seized by the U.S. government: 328,400 BTC ​ 6. Fidelity FBTC ETF: 190,000 – 200,000 BTC ​ 7. Grayscale GBTC: 144,000 BTC (Sustained net redemptions and drawdowns) ​ 8. Bitfinex Exchange: Approximately 195,000 BTC

• 
  Giacomo ShadowUNbanned Zucco (@giacomozucco) reported 48 minutes ago

  @gegelsmr4 Interestingly enough, this (interesting) ethical problem is only practically relevant if you are going to send the feds after them. Which is a retarded thing to do anyway, since the feds steal much more money (with violence and guns, not "finding" it) and even if they caught the attackers would keep the loot for themselves (cf Bitfinex). So it's a theoretically important question which cyphertank theory makes irrelevant: just make your keys hard to find.

• 
  Boots (@bootzz) reported 51 minutes ago

  step back, look at the psychological state of ct & the headlines that are coming out detach yourself from $. best guess is someone/thing is hunting an entry and pushing price down to do so Blackrock as an example- could do this with ‘minimal’ size relative to their port Bitfinex whales are long here

• 
  whits (@whits23) reported 51 minutes ago

  @SaniExp have not heard from you lately. Bitfinex had 30000 bitcoin but just shut down with only 3600? Any explanation or truth? @w_s_bitcoin @Pledditor

• 
  Uncle Jim (@losingshekels) reported 56 minutes ago

  @paoloardoino PAOLO PLEASE HELP ME TO RETRIEVE MY 11.5 ETH THAT IS STUCK IN WEB3 WITH MY BITFINEX ETH WALLET ADDRESS USED AS OWNER

• 
  Kathlyn Tuccillo (@KathlynTuc77441) reported 56 minutes ago

  Bitcoin ETFs absorbed 13300 BTC last week against 3150 issued, but price rose only 2 percent. Bitfinex Alpha flags a demand engine turning seller as range support. Read report now, weigh in: what moves Bitcoin next? #Crypto