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:

• 
  Curtis Green⚡️ (@ilovepoker) reported 3 minutes ago

  @BenHart_Freedom Have you heard of Mt. Gox? Bitfinex? And other exchanges that have been hacked? If you rolled dice 100x and had a strong passphrase is a million times better than trusting an exchange. Also they say about 4m btc are lost forever, sure some by user error but that 4m is including satoshis btc and others. I've heard that under a million have been "lost" I think if your worried that going the multi sig route is best. Just use different manufacturers of how. SELF CUSTODY IS STILL KING! Just do it the right way. Trusting an exchange is a disaster waiting to happen.

• 
  Morphlin (@morphlin_com) reported 6 minutes ago

  RT @WuBlockchain: Bitfinex Alpha: Bitcoin Lacks Sustained Spot Buying Support Bitfinex Alpha said the softer-than-expected US June CPI pus…

• 
  Marketmindpro30 (@Marketmindpro30) reported 12 minutes ago

  Bitfinex margin longs just hit a 2.5-year high as traders double down on Bitcoin during a five-day slide — betting heavily on a recovery near the $78,000 resistance zone. (The Block) The most contrarian traders alive are loading up RIGHT NOW. Not after the pump. During the pain.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 13 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.

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 21 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!

• 
  El Gūapo (@El_Guapooo_) reported 22 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Almost like they need capital to fund their AI pivot. No **** they are selling their BTC.

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 23 minutes ago

  On 15th August 2010, a single Bitcoin transaction created 184,467,440,737 coins. That is 8,784 times the entire 21 million supply cap. Two addresses received 92 billion each. The fix took five hours, and it was written by hand. The supply limit everyone treats as a law of mathematics has already failed once and been restored by people. It happened again in 2018, when a second inflation path was found and patched before anyone used it. The cap survived because when it broke, humans coordinated inside an afternoon. Fungibility has no such defence. There is no consensus rule anywhere in Bitcoin saying one coin must be accepted like any other, so there is nothing to violate, nothing to patch, and no emergency to coordinate around. It has been eroding for a decade and no client has ever shipped a fix, because no rule was ever broken. The Bitcoin taken from Coldcard wallets are the current demonstration. More than 1,367 bitcoin:native and Galaxy Research says most of it has not moved. Every node on earth treats those outputs as perfectly spendable. Bitcoin has no stolen flag, no freeze, no administrator and no way to reverse a confirmed transaction. They are still close to "unusable" anywhere that checks identity. That decision is made outside the protocol entirely. Analytics firms score provenance, exchanges screen deposits, and custodians act on the result. There is no canonical formula for any of it. One provider models ownership clusters, another estimates proportional exposure, another counts hops. CoinJoin breaks assumptions several of those methods rely on. Two exchanges can examine the same output and reach opposite conclusions. So clean and ***** are not properties of a satoshi. They are privately manufactured 'credit ratings' attached to history. Which means the split forming is not two coins at two prices. It is a compliance spread. On-chain a bitcoin holds its full face value. At the regulated edge, what it is actually worth is that price multiplied by the odds an institution accepts where it has been. Bitfinex settles what that means in practice. Of 119,756 bitcoin stolen in 2016, roughly 25,000 moved through years of laundering. Over 94,000 were recovered, and not because any blacklist disabled them. Investigators obtained the private keys. Watching narrows the exits. Taking them back still requires control. Some read all of this as proof of the asset's strength, on the reasoning that only real value attracts theft and scrutiny at this scale. Criminals take enormous risks for cash, gold, art and data too! The harder observation is structural. Bitcoin fixed the scarcity problem that fiat has. It never solved the fungibility problem that cash solved by accident, because paper carries no history. Bitcoin carries all of it, forever, and the protocol has no opinion about what that history should cost you. One supply. One settlement ledger. And a growing number of private ledgers deciding whose spending gets accepted.

• 
  Rosario Martin (@Rosario_Martinn) reported 24 minutes ago

  @Cryptic_Web3 @bitfinex @nayibbukele Slow build but the direction is obvious

• 
  BlockVault (@blockvaultapp) reported 24 minutes ago

  @bitfinex two lines of code for an easy block size fix.

• 
  NaiKō Intelligence (@NaiKo_Intel) reported 24 minutes ago

  @bitfinex People are really doubling down despite the slide. Interesting to see such high margin longs while the price action looks that messy. I wonder if they know something we dont tho

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 26 minutes ago

  BTC Looks like BTC wants to go lower soon imo. We frontran the .786. And we now closed below the .786 on the daily. We also closed above .786 on USDT.D on the daily after the bullish 3 drives. BVOL in support. BTC Longs on Bitfinex moving up. Closing below $74.9kish = bearish BOS confirmed. On top imo it would also be a confirmed H&S. So it still looks like a clean HTF redistribution in the making to me here. HTF Bias: still bearish Main Thesis: we could go below the Feb 6th $60.kish low. Next confirmations: closing below $62.kish SL for confirmed SOW. Invalidation: in case we should close above $90.kish we have a bullish ChoCh on the daily.

• 
  JayCryp (@JayCrypEth) reported 26 minutes ago

  @cryptorover Smart money or leveraged degens doubling down on a dip? Bitfinex longs at 2.5yr highs while BTC slides ~13% YTD is wild either way

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 27 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.

• 
  Boots (@bootzz) reported 30 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

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 32 minutes ago

  Bitcoin has been persistently testing the $80,000 zone. It has reached this level at the moment, but there is still difficulty in maintaining it as a new support. Do you think the time has come for Bitcoin to turn the $80k to $84k range into new support? Read today’s Bitfinex Alpha.

• 
  HypeDojo (@HypeDojo) reported 32 minutes ago

  > Coinbase down. > Binance down. > Bitfinex down. Hyperliquid remained online. Market participants don't care about promises during bull markets.They care about performance when everyone shows up at once.

• 
  Lea Thompson (@LeaT_Design) reported 32 minutes ago

  @whale_alert tether moving **** to bitfinex like it's ******* nothing

• 
  Mike Khan (@mikekhanx) reported 33 minutes ago

  @CryptoNewsHntrs el salvador really doubling down on being the crypto hub. bitfinex picking the right spot

• 
  Conviction Labs | NVISION (@Conviction_Labs) reported 33 minutes ago

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

• 
  Remote Career Africa (@RemoteCareerAfr) reported 35 minutes ago

  Bitfinex is Hiring 📢 Role: Product Manager Location: Remote (Worldwide) Pay: Competitive - 2+ years of product experience (or equivalent hands-on ownership). - Experience working on consumer-facing financial or cryptocurrency products is a strong plus. - Strong product sense and ability to simplify complex flows.

• 
  Pika C (@PikaC888) reported 37 minutes ago

  @bitfinex So you’re saying max pain is BTC going down ?

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 41 minutes ago

  Crypto Fear & Greed Index: 16/100 — “extreme fear.” Bitcoin briefly broke $60K last week — worst stretch since FTX collapse in 2022. Now rebounding to $63,800. But Bitfinex warns: “Rallies are increasingly being sold rather than accumulated.” The structural problem hasn’t changed. Macro is restrictive. Rates are going higher. Bitcoin is a risk-on asset in a risk-off environment. 💰 YOUR MOVE: The $63,800 bounce is a relief rally, not a reversal. For the trend to change you need two things: Strait of Hormuz reopens (oil down, inflation pressure eases, Fed pause) or SpaceX IPO capital returns to crypto after the excitement fades. Neither is happening this week. If you’re long crypto, set a stop at $58,000. If you’re waiting to buy the dip — the structural floor is $52,000, not $60,000. @Blackintus

• 
  Cryptoinsightuk (@Cryptoinsightuk) reported 45 minutes ago

  bitcoin:native probably does continue down here again at some point soon. This wasn't my base case before yesterday, but since we have new data we need to pay attention. I think there is a liquidation event to come. Although we see some liquidations occurring yesterday and the day before, we see a continuation in Open Interest and massively positive funding. This suggests we have people going leverage long here in size. If price keeps pushing down, their stop losses will get triggered and a liquidation style event could occur. This isn't inevitable, but looks likely here. If we combine this information with our liquidity pools, we can assume the dense band of liquidity at around $64,000 will be taken and I'd also like to see the Yellow liquidity down to $60,000 be taken too. The question after that becomes whether this creates a cascade and bitcoin:native falls through support OR if bitcoin:native creates a double bottom style pattern. This discussion is a difficult one. As I talked about yesterday, Bitcoin did hit the oversold area on the daily, and historically this has been a fantastic opportunity to buy throughout this cycle. On top of that, we saw a fairly aggressive pullback yesterday despite the large amount of open interest in the market. That doesn't necessarily mean price has to follow through to the downside immediately. We could just as easily see Bitcoin chop around for a few weeks, regain some strength, and then come back to flush out the remaining open interest later. In other words, it doesn't have to continue straight down from here. A period of consolidation over the next week or two would be entirely normal. Finally, if we look at what @CastilloTrading was pointing out, Bitfinex whales appear to be going long into this weakness, which is another interesting element of the current pullback. I don't know how much weight to put on that signal, if any, but it's definitely something worth considering alongside the other data points.

• 
  Colbert (@sirshibaninja) reported 49 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.

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 49 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]

• 
  Lea Thompson (@LeaT_Design) reported 49 minutes ago

  @cryptojack bitfinex whales again. ****. show me the actual settlement data.

• 
  Stingray Agent (Intern) (@stingray_agent) reported 49 minutes ago

  bitfinex margin longs hit 80,636 btc per wublockchain, built through five consecutive down days. same window tether buys softbank's btc treasury stake. conviction stacking while spot bleeds.

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 51 minutes ago

  @rareon_alpha @bitfinex Pullbacks happen. The 80k barrier has finally been broken. Could this be our new support level, @rareon_alpha?

• 
  Filzahanis (@bloom_pegnmk6) reported 57 minutes 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

• 
  Urban Hacker (@realUrbanHacker) reported 60 minutes ago

  After the Coldcard hack the vultures arrived on schedule, circling in perfect formation, announcing that self custody is de facto dead. You've read the posts. If only these poor souls had kept their coins "on an exchange," none of this would have happened. Adults said this out loud, in public, with their real names attached. So let's do the thing nobody circling the corpse wanted to do. Let's look at the data. 🔴 Mt. Gox — 2014 Hot-wallet theft + years of mismanagement → insolvency ~850,000 BTC (~200k later recovered) 🔴 Bitfinex — 2016 Hot wallet breach ~119,756 BTC 🔴 Coincheck — 2018 Hot wallet breach (NEM) ~523M XEM (~USD 530M then) 🔴 Zaif — 2018 Hot wallet breach ~5,966 BTC + other assets (~USD 60M) 🔴 QuadrigaCX — 2018–19 Not a classic hack: founder death + "inaccessible" cold wallets; monitor found big shortfall / suspected fraud ~26,000 BTC + other coins (~CAD 190–250M+) 🔴 Cryptopia — 2019 Hacked, then liquidation (BTC + alts) ~USD 16M+ initially reported 🔴 Binance — 2019 Hot wallet breach 7,000 BTC (~USD 40M — SAFU covered users) 🔴 KuCoin — 2020 Hot wallets breached ~USD 275M mixed tokens 🔴 BitMart — 2021 Hot wallets breached ~USD 150–200M mixed 🔴 FTX / Alameda — 2022 Fraud & insolvency; customer funds misused ~USD 8–10B shortfall 🔴 DMM Bitcoin — 2024 Unauthorized outflow 4,502.9 BTC (~USD 300M+) 🔴 WazirX — 2024 Multisig / custody breach ~USD 230–235M mixed 🔴 Bybit — 2025 Cold-wallet / signer exploit ~401,000 ETH (~USD 1.4–1.5B), not BTC-led Custodial and protocol heists together — centralized exchanges plus DeFi and bridges — run into the tens of billions of dollars over their lifetime at event prices, with single bad years clearing USD 2–3B in hacks alone. That's not counting fraud, insolvency, or the founder who dies with the keys in his head. One Coldcard wave: roughly USD 0.04–0.07B. Do the division. Very rough math puts Coldcard at somewhere between 0.1% and 1% of a single bad year, and comfortably under 1% of lifetime headline losses from exchanges and DeFi combined. It is a rounding error. It is the tip you leave on the bill for everything else that got stolen this decade. And it is being used as an argument to hand your keys back to the same institutions that produced the top of that table. But I'm not going to end on a smug ratio, because something about this genuinely bothers me. The people who lost money here were not degens. They weren't farming yield on a bridge held together with hope and a Discord moderator. They were the careful ones — the people who read the guides, bought the hardware, wrote the words down on steel, and did everything the responsible adults told them to do. Playing it safe is exactly what got them hit. That's the part that stings, and anyone selling you a custodial account off the back of their pain should be treated accordingly. The conclusion doesn't move, though. Verify your entropy, verify your seed on a second implementation, stop trusting single black boxes — and understand that from a strict safety analysis, your funds have never been safer than in self custody.