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:

• 
  faizco. (@PhaResearcher) reported 2 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.

• 
  Conviction Labs | NVISION (@Conviction_Labs) reported 4 minutes ago

  $BTC Bitfinex margin longs added a lot on this move down to 59k. Means a HUGE reversal by EOY.

• 
  Dom's Crypto (@Doms_Crypto) reported 6 minutes ago

  Bitcoin has crashed = bears are happy BUT: bitcoin:native has printed same low on RSI14 level around ~12.00 - same as back on massive crash down to $60,000 (see on the second chart) An indecisive 4-hour candle printed which can bring buyers back into the game Bitfinex Longs going nuts

• 
  waffles (@WaffleHouseGuy1) reported 8 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Will you support Luke coin?

• 
  CryptoSuzy888 (@CryptoSuzy888) reported 15 minutes ago

  @AshCrypto The Timeline of a Slow DeathThe First Strike (June 24, 2022): This was the day the network actually flatlined. North Korea's notorious Lazarus Group exploited Harmony's Horizon Bridge, looting $100 million in various crypto assets. The hack completely unpegged Harmony's wrapped assets, draining the network's liquidity and destroying user trust overnight. The Slow Coma (2022–2025): For the last four years, Harmony existed on life support. Total Value Locked (TVL) collapsed by over 99%—crashing from a multi-billion dollar peak down to a ghost-town baseline. Major institutional platforms slowly severed ties, including Bitfinex delisting the asset, and derivatives platform BitDelta purging its ONEUSD futures contracts. The Corpse Exploit (Today — August 12, 2026): Because the team and developer activity had largely abandoned the chain, severe logical bugs were left completely unpatched. Today's attacker simply walked through an open door, exploiting cross-shard vulnerabilities to forge receipts and mint 3 trillion rogue tokens out of thin air to dump onto exchanges.

• 
  RelativelyIrrelevant.vip (@RelIrrelvantVIP) reported 15 minutes ago

  @Charlesdav43874 @IndyBitcoin So when an XMR customer uses Kraken, KuCoin, Bitfinex, Poloniex (all examples) or similar XMR providers; those DAB's know the Customer and the amount of the Digital Asset Business Activity performed on the Customer's behalf. Those XMR DABAs would not be anonymous & are taxable.

• 
  Cryptocrat (@Cryptocratico) reported 15 minutes ago

  🚨 $167M BTC SHIFTS BETWEEN MAJOR EXCHANGES Approximately 2,572 BTC moved in two transactions from a Bitfinex-labeled hot wallet to Kraken-labeled addresses. This is a sizeable cross-exchange liquidity shift—not evidence of a sale. Customer withdrawals, custody, OTC settlement or liquidity management remain possible.

• 
  Skin In The Game (@SITGnews) reported 16 minutes ago

  Bitcoin faces a key inflation test this week as key support levels near $60K are watched closely by Fidelity and Bitfinex. CryptoQuant warns the bear cycle may not be over.

• 
  M-log1 (@log1_053) reported 19 minutes ago

  The reason you should block these accounts. Bitfinex whales are what you should counter trade, they are smart money but the way this morron makes all think like.

• 
  Jason Montoya (@jaysmontoya) reported 19 minutes ago

  @bitfinex fair read on reserves but sentiment this crushed with funding negative means shorts are comfortable here. that's not a safe spot to be short either. leg down is possible, so is a violent squeeze with no buyers on the ask

• 
  squid (@hopium_dealer) reported 22 minutes ago

  amount is small relative to liquidity. Also, reminiscent of 2016 bitfinex heist, stolen BTC is notoriously hard to exit at size. marginal as supply for months probably. market reaction to this terrible news, triple-bottoming at $62.5k support, is surprisingly bullish.

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 24 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

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 24 minutes ago

  @NobodyonXI Never say never I'd say. Bitfinex and Tron...y not? But personally would wonder a lot in case Tether collapses. Too important for evil money and too big. Maybe a huge depeg and that's it? But yeah never say never. FTX was also big. And after it had served its purpose it was shot down. And we now have USDC so... Need to watch his stuff about in detail! Saw he posted a lot of very nice stuff about it and is very deep into it. I'm not that deep into it. The stuff here that's it more or less

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 25 minutes ago

  @bitfinex BEWARE ! BITFINEX HOLDING CUSTOMERS FUNDS PRETENDING COMPLIANCE ISSUES !

• 
  Stash Management (@Stashquants) reported 26 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Urgent KYC issue: Compliance directed me to open a ticket, but Support has directed me back to Compliance. I can provide current documents and proof of my legal name change. My account is also under a withdrawal hold, making the 3-day deadline impossible. Need Help.

• 
  2weed 🇵🇸 (@TAUHEED5) reported 30 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Wtf is bitfinex whale

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 34 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.

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 36 minutes ago

  Many things in this post are incorrect, and it matters that we correct them, because this version of the history is exactly what convinced people the last few months were a good idea. “BIP-148 is celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day, because it proved that ordinary users, running nodes in their homes, could force the most powerful mining cartels and corporations in the industry to back down. The users had no hashrate, no exchanges, no lobbyists. They had conviction and they had nodes, and that was enough.” First, the framing. August 1st is what's celebrated as Bitcoin Independence Day (I coined and popularized that term). August 1st was the flag day, and it commemorates the outcome the UASF threat produced, not BIP-148 itself. Second, BIP-148 was not just "ordinary users" running nodes at home. It was a cross section of the entire Bitcoin network, something a lot of BIP-110 supporters seem to disregard: developers, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mega whales, alongside ordinary users. Most important to understand is that BIP-148 and the small block camp carried a massive amount of economic weight. Chain split markets ran on @bitfinex through 2017, and outside of those markets I know of many OTC deals struck privately in whale groups to trade one side of a split against the other. There was skin in the game on both sides of the war, and huge amounts of BTC put on the line to show real conviction. This was as much an economic war as an ideological one, and that point is rarely acknowledged. Even the companies backing BIP-148 were taking real risk. BIP-148 was never merged into Bitcoin Core. Running it meant deliberately installing different software and accepting that if the UASF chain lost, you could be reorganized off the chain entirely. Bitmain spelled that scenario out themselves, calling it a wipe out, in the same post where they laid out their hard fork contingency. Dozens of companies committed anyway (BIP-110 supporters would likely call them suitcoiners today). On the topic of hashrate, BIP-148 had no version bit of its own. It required bit 1, which was BIP-141. So the accurate way to state it is that BIP-148/BIP-141 had 30-45% of hashrate behind it for most of its deployment window. During that time I was COO of BTCC, overseeing a mining pool that was the biggest one signaling SegWit. So the UASF threat had three components that made it credible: economic weight, hashrate, and nodes. BIP-110 only had nodes. That is UASF cosplay, not a real UASF. Another point to cover: Mechanic was spreading misinformation in Spaces (and likely other places) that BIP-148, a UASF, activated SegWit. That is false. It was technically BIP-91 that brought miners in line with BIP-141. BIP-148 was effectively frontrun and never had to be tested. So Bitcoin Independence Day, while celebrating the flag day deadline, is as much a celebration of BIP-91 as it is of BIP-148. So no, it was not just nodes and conviction. Just think about things rationally for a minute. Why would buying a node-in-a-box give you the right to dictate what anyone else on the network does, regardless of whether it's a miner or another user? Does buying two nodes-in-a-box give you that power? Of course not. Btw the whole plug-and-play node culture came after the Blocksize War. In 2015-2017 you just downloaded the software and ran it on your computer. Stay humble and stack sats, but also stay humble when people who lived through the history try to explain it to you.

• 
  netrunner (@netrunner_btc) reported 37 minutes ago

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

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 37 minutes ago

  This is the kind of narrative that gets pushed while the actual architecture centralizes and leaks. Onion routing hides the full path. That part is real. But the protocol has built in leaks that have been known and documented for years: - Same payment hash on every hop →trivial correlation. - Balance probing recovers up to 89% of public channel balances. - Timing analysis: the single most central node can observe timing on 50% of payments. Top 4 nodes cover 72%. 
Meanwhile the “decentralized L2” part: - Public capacity hovers between 2.7k–5.6k BTC.
- Top 10 nodes control 62% of all public liquidity.
- Gini coefficient for node capacity: 0.97. - Top 10% of nodes hold 80% of the locked bitcoin. This is not decentralization. This is a hub and spoke system with a few very powerful hubs. 
Who runs these hubs? Mostly exchanges and LSPs: Bitfinex, ACINQ, Binance, Kraken, OKX, Wallet of Satoshi and similar. If you’re not running your own full node and managing your own liquidity, you’re almost certainly routing through these entities. They see sender, receiver and amounts. Privacy collapses. 
This isn’t a bug. It’s the predictable result of a design that prioritizes routing efficiency and capital efficiency over actual decentralization and strong privacy. Powerful adversaries (state level or well resourced) don’t even need to break onion routing perfectly. They just sit on or near the big hubs and watch. 
Lightning can move small payments faster and cheaper than on-chain. That’s its actual use case. But calling it incredible privacy by default while the liquidity and routing are this concentrated and while these attacks exist, is dishonest. Real privacy requires an additional layer on top (Chaumian ecash like Cashu is one attempt). The base Lightning protocol does not deliver it. 
Bitcoin was supposed to be a tool for financial sovereignty and resistance to control. When the dominant scaling solution creates new centralized chokepoints that are easy to monitor and potentially censor, we’ve traded one set of problems for another that serves power better. Data doesn’t lie. Narratives do.

• 
  Conviction Labs | NVISION (@Conviction_Labs) reported 39 minutes ago

  $BTC Bitfinex margin longs added a lot on this move down to 59k. Means a HUGE reversal by EOY.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 41 minutes ago

  July 2026 Exchange Website Traffic Report: total about 134.31 million visits, MoM decreased 2.35% Data compiled by the WuBlockchain Data Center show that major crypto exchanges recorded about 134.31 million website visits in July 2026, down 2.35% from 137.54 million in June. Binance ranked first with 36.04 million visits, followed by OKX with 25.62 million and Coinbase with 20.60 million. The three exchanges accounted for a combined 61.2% of total traffic. Among the 12 exchanges tracked, five recorded month-over-month growth and seven declined. Bitfinex (+3.7%), KuCoin (+3.2%) and Bybit (+2.8%) posted the largest increases, while Deribit (-44.7%), HTX (-23.0%) and Upbit (-16.0%) saw the steepest declines. India was Binance’s largest source of visitors, Japan was the largest for OKX, and the U.S. was the largest for Coinbase.

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 44 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

• 
  Rob Leder 🟥 (@rleder) reported 44 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.

• 
  KOLYAN TREND (@kolyan_trend) reported 49 minutes ago

  ALERT: Bitfinex analysts warn Bitcoin faces a key resistance at $85,900 that could cap any recovery rally, as $584 million in long positions were liquidated in a single session. BTC is testing support near $76,318, the May monthly open, while stablecoin supply sits at a record $322 billion. $BTC

• 
  Rahul K (@iamrahulinc) reported 50 minutes ago

  🚨𝗚𝗟𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗧 𝗩𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗠𝗘 𝗣𝗟𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗦 𝟮𝟭.𝟳% 𝗜𝗡 𝗝𝗨𝗟𝗬! Spot trading across 14 leading exchanges fell to $429.0 billion in July, down from $547.9 billion in June. Every exchange saw a dip. Binance led with $196.5 billion (45.8% of total), followed by OKX ($41.6 billion) and Bybit ($36.3 billion), together making up 64% of activity. Uniswap ($UNI) had the mildest drop at 9.8%, while Bitfinex slumped 59.7%, Coinbase 26.4% and Bybit 24.5%.

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 54 minutes ago

  Daily ForeDex CVD by Order Size (Spot) Snapshot 📸 🔸 Whales and Mega Whales Only 🔸 Based on a 1 month period (1M) 1. Binance : Decreased 📉 2. Bybit : No Change ➖ 3. Bitfinex (USD) : No Change ➖ 4. Bitfinex (USDT) : No Change ➖ ✅ Summary: A gradual step-down was seen on Binance, with no change across Bybit, Bitfinex USD, and Bitfinex USDT. [07-16-2026]

• 
  difoxxn (@Difoxxn) reported 55 minutes ago

  $𝗕𝗚𝗕 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮 "𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲" 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗶𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗸𝘁. 𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻-𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Bitfinex just yeeted $BGB off their platform (delisted July 3). And the "official reason"? A vague "listing qualifications review." Translation: read between the lines yourself. Meanwhile Bitget's out here launching Stocks 2.0 like it's the second coming of TradFi. Cool story. But nobody's talking about the fact that $BGB's 24h volume is a measly $10M on a $1.18B cap. That's a 0.85% vol/cap ratio. This thing trades like a ghost town, not a "top 3 exchange token." "Deflationary tokenomics" 🤡 let's fact check that real quick: Dec 2024 burn: 800M tokens. Massive, legit, impressive. Q2 2026 Morph burn: 3,010,400 tokens. That's not a burn, that's a rounding error. Someone's riding on 2024's hype with 2026's leftovers. And here's the part that should actually scare you — there's NO public whale wallet breakdown for $BGB. None. Zero. Nada. An exchange that publishes monthly Proof of Reserves for 42 straight months... can't show you who's holding the bag on their own token? Make it make sense. That green candle everyone's screenshotting? Pure market beta. Zero BGB-specific catalyst behind it. You're not smart money for buying it — you're just along for the market's ride. My honest take: this is a CEX with real revenue wrapped around a token with thin liquidity, a fresh tier-1 delisting, and zero whale transparency. That's not a "hold and pray" setup — that's a "know your exit" setup. Growth headlines don't pay your bags. On-chain flow does. Stay sharp, don't get exit-liquidity'd. NFA, DYOR, act accordingly. #BGB #Bitget

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 57 minutes ago

  @GoldPulseCrypto @bitfinex Maybe wouldn’t say we’re back to square one, considering the market has strong support above 75k after the end of the previous cycle. That’s positive, isn’t it, @GoldPulseCrypto ?

• 
  EyeOnChain (@EyeOnChain) reported 58 minutes ago

  Abraxas Capital isn't slowing down its ETH buying. Over the past 7 hours, Abraxas Capital has withdrawn more than 15,477 ETH, worth over $29.88 million, from major exchanges. That brings its total ETH accumulation over the past week to more than 48,996 ETH, valued at over $88 million, withdrawn from Binance, Bybit, and Bitfinex. The steady stream of exchange withdrawals suggests Abraxas continues to aggressively accumulate ETH rather than keeping it on trading platforms.