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:

• 
  Jacob King (@JacobKinge) reported 9 seconds ago

  Bitcoin is the most centralized asset ever, marketed as “decentralized.” If you understand how the Bitcoin blockchain actually works, it becomes obvious that it is not immutable or untouchable. The code can be changed, and the chain can be controlled through coordination. For those who don’t know, Bitcoin runs on a single public blockchain, and control of that chain comes from who produces the blocks. Today, block production is dominated by only 4 mining pools: Foundry USA (30%), AntPool (18%), ViaBTC (11%), and F2Pool (10%). Together, the top pools routinely control over 65% of total hash power, and the top 5 over 75%. Officially, these pools are “separate” on paper, but they all work together. They share the exact same private funding, have same aligned incentives, and overlapping miners. This creates a de facto centralization where a single group influences block production, censors transactions, or pushes protocol changes at will. In reality, fewer than 10 people control most of Bitcoin through the top mining pools and core developers. Revealed from the Epstein files, Israel also funded much of this early development, covering over 60% of the core developers’ salaries. “Decentralized” is purely marketing. Stablecoins give this same cabal another lever over Bitcoin. They want prices up? Easy. They print unbacked Tether or USDC out of thin air and inject it into exchanges they control or influence, like FTX (before it collapsed), Binance, Bitfinex, Coinbase, and others. They want prices down? Just pretend to burn the coins, trigger panic, and the market enters a bear phase. These mechanisms make Bitcoin’s price highly manipulable despite its “free market” image. When a small group produces most of the blocks, transaction censorship, reordering, and enforced protocol changes are no longer hypothetical. Bitcoin is marketed as pseudo-anonymous and seizure-resistant, yet governments have seized millions of dollars in BTC with ease. Do you ever wonder how? The 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware payment was traced and recovered almost immediately by the FBI, which they later admitted they got access to the wallet’s private key (Very sus!). Similar seizures occurred with Silk Road, the Bitfinex hack funds, and multiple darknet and ransomware cases. This level of enforcement is incompatible with claims of true privacy or sovereignty. They clearly have backdoor access. Bitcoin functions like a Trojan horse. It was hyped as a financial miracle, sold to the masses, and accepted without skepticism. In reality, it is a speculative gambling chip, heavily surveilled and quietly managed by insiders. Strip away the mythology and it is no more valuable than a digital beanie baby with better marketing.

• 
  Cipher Protocol Zero Hour (@cipherprotocoll) reported 27 seconds ago

  Fear & Greed: 50. Neutral. First time since October 2025 — when Bitcoin was at $126,000. Bull Market Support Band reclaimed for the first time in 6 months. Three signals — Glassnode, Bitfinex, options market — all pointing to $85,000. Cipher Score: 73 · Accumulate

• 
  Tender Market Research (@Tradebeta2) reported 2 minutes ago

  In August 2016, the crypto world woke up to chaos. Bitfinex, one of the biggest Bitcoin exchanges at the time, announced that hackers had stolen 119,756 BTC from customer accounts. Back then, it was worth around $72 million. At modern Bitcoin prices, that stash would be worth billions today. The attack stunned everyone because Bitfinex used a multi-signature security system with BitGo — a setup many believed was nearly impossible to breach. Yet somehow, the hackers found a way. Panic spread instantly. Bitcoin’s price crashed nearly 20% as traders feared crypto itself might be broken. Users rushed to withdraw funds from exchanges. Trust vanished overnight. But the real twist came years later. In 2022, U.S. authorities arrested a married couple: Ilya Lichtenstein and Heather Morgan. Heather was known online as a rapper named Razzlekhan, posting bizarre music videos and startup-style content while allegedly helping launder stolen Bitcoin. The internet couldn’t believe it. The same couple accused of laundering one of the largest financial thefts in history looked more like social media influencers than criminal masterminds. Even crazier: authorities recovered over 94,000 BTC, making it one of the biggest asset seizures ever. Sometimes the wildest stories are real. Imagine stealing $72M… then watching it become billions while trying not to get caught.

• 
  Conviction Labs | NVISION (@Conviction_Labs) reported 3 minutes ago

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

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 4 minutes ago

  Crypto Fear & Greed Index: 16/100 — “extreme fear.” Bitcoin bitcoin:native 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

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 5 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

• 
  Jason Montoya (@jaysmontoya) reported 6 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

• 
  Gain (@GainMaxxing) reported 10 minutes ago

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

• 
  Cosimo Capiτal ⚜️ (@CosimoCapital) reported 12 minutes ago

  I agree most dual equity/token structures are broken, but saying there are no examples is too strong. ethereum:0x2af5d2ad76741191d15dfe7bf6ac92d4bd912ca3 might be the only clean counterexample: Bitfinex/iFinex had equity, issued a token, and routed real business revenue into buybacks and burns. That is the key distinction. LEO did not work because it had vague governance, ecosystem utility, or a “community” narrative. It worked because the token had explicit, credible value accrual. The lesson is not that equity + token never works. The lesson is that it almost never works unless the token has a real economic sink tied to the business. Crypto Twitter has also changed. It is starting to act less like moonbois and more like activist investors. People are demanding value capture, capital return, burns, buybacks, transparency, and alignment. We should study what has actually worked and duplicate the mechanism instead of pretending every token needs to be a vibes-based governance asset.

• 
  SANDY.CRYPTOMAN (@SanMSH21) reported 18 minutes ago

  $Bitcoin ----Most Costly Mistakes The $44 Billion Bithumb Blunder (2026) A Bithumb employee accidentally sent 620,000 BTC instead of 2,000 Korean Won to users, forcing a massive, near-total network rollback and asset freeze. $44.000 Billion — Bithumb Error (2026) $9.000 Billion Mt. Gox Repayment Move (2024) $3.600 Billion DOJ Bitfinex Seizure (2022) $1.000 Billion DOJ Silk Road Move (2020) $0.003 B. Record Transaction Fee ($3.1M in 2023) $0.001 Billion Paxos Overpayment ($510,000 in 2023)

• 
  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!

• 
  Remote Career Africa (@RemoteCareerAfr) reported 22 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.

• 
  Moloch (@Moloch6666) reported 24 minutes ago

  @vincent_vancode It's manipulated on the way down and up It has been discovered in court how tether is manipulating the prices with bots in cooperation with the biggest exchanges(bitfinex case).

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 27 minutes ago

  @bitfinex All these dates can help identify areas of caution or opportunities for Bitcoin! Remember that trading here has zero fees!

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 27 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: Unlike yesterday’s slight decline, Binance showed a more distinct step down today. The other three exchanges showed no change. [07-28-2026]

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 27 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.

• 
  Erik (@ero_crypto) reported 27 minutes ago

  CENTRALIZED EXCHANGE ASSET FLOWS Where is capital moving across centralized exchanges this month? Looking at 30-day net flows across 65+ tracked CEXs, the picture shows a clear shift in capital and confidence between platforms. As of August 6, 2026, total CEX assets stand at $244.6B, down from $246.86B 30 days earlier — a net decline of $2.26B (-0.92%). ◾ 28 exchanges recorded inflows totaling +$893.5M ◾ 37 exchanges saw outflows totaling -$3.15B ◾ OKX: -$1.186B (-5.59%) ◾ Bybit: -$604.2M ◾ Bitfinex: +$263.91M ◾ Deribit: +$257.36M Bitfinex and Deribit attracted the strongest inflows relative to their size, while OKX and Bybit experienced some of the largest capital outflows. The broader takeaway: capital is leaving CEXs overall, but the flow between individual platforms is telling a much more interesting story.

• 
  Filzahanis (@bloom_pegnmk6) reported 28 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

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 28 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.

• 
  Rosario Martin (@Rosario_Martinn) reported 32 minutes ago

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

• 
  DMT-NAT 小果果（晨曦） (@nat_xgg2288) reported 34 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

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 35 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.

• 
  DeepBlueAlpha (@DeepBlueAlpha) reported 36 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

• 
  Trader Tool Match (@TraderToolMatch) reported 40 minutes ago

  Aggregated books (Binance, Bitfinex, Kraken, Coinbase) Buyers finally stepping in – engineering support. What do you think? Will this support last or will it break?

• 
  Curtis Green⚡️ (@ilovepoker) reported 40 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.

• 
  Youngsky01 (@DaneiCesario) reported 43 minutes ago

  @bloom_pegnmk6 @bitfinex Satoshi also wouldn't recognize half the things people call "blockchain" today—he was solving a specific problem (trustless payments), not inventing a hammer for every nail in existence

• 
  Giovanni Colombo🌹⚡️🇸🇻 $69Mil gang founder (@____Holyspawn) reported 51 minutes ago

  @bitfinex There is clearly no correlation sigma at all between these 2. And correlations , even at sigma above 0.9, could still means deep ****, even eggs price could be more significant than this one vs #Bitcoin. 🌹

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 52 minutes ago

  @ProofOfMoney Bitcoin custodian (and exchange) failures form a long-running pattern of hacks, key mismanagement, fraud, and insolvency that has repeatedly locked or destroyed customer funds. These are not isolated events. Centralized platforms holding private keys create single points of failure—whether technical, operational, or human. Major Historical Failures Platform Year Estimated Loss Primary Cause Notes Mt. Gox 2014 ~850,000 BTC Prolonged security breach / poor controls Once handled >70% of global BTC volume. Bankruptcy; partial creditor repayments began years later and continued into 2025–2026. Net unrecovered portion still very large. Bitfinex 2016 119,756 BTC Multi-signature wallet vulnerability Significant hot-wallet/security failure. QuadrigaCX 2019 ~76,000 BTC + other assets Founder death + sole key control / alleged fraud Canadian exchange; Gerald Cotten held sole access to cold wallets. Funds largely inaccessible. Celsius 2022 Several billion USD Insolvency / risky lending Withdrawal freeze then bankruptcy after market downturn. FTX 2022 ~$8 billion shortfall Fraud (customer funds diverted to Alameda) One of the largest exchange collapses. Bankruptcy proceedings later recovered substantial value; some creditor classes received >100% of petition-date claims due to market recovery and asset management. Other notable cases include Prime Trust (2023) and related entities such as Fortress Trust, which faced insolvency, lost access to wallets/keys, and allegedly used customer funds improperly to cover shortfalls. Broader Context and Patterns •Hacks remain common (e.g., Bybit’s large 2025 incident involving ~$1.4–1.5 billion, primarily ETH, attributed to sophisticated attackers exploiting operational processes). •Key management failures (lost or inaccessible private keys) and commingling/misuse of customer assets appear repeatedly. •Insolvency cascades in 2022 (Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, Genesis, FTX) showed how lending and leverage amplify risks when platforms treat customer deposits as their own capital. •Recovery is often slow and incomplete. Mt. Gox creditors waited a decade-plus; FTX moved faster with better asset recovery but still involved multi-year processes and frozen access during bankruptcy. Independent archives tracking custody access failures (including exchange lockouts, inheritance issues, and operational barriers) document hundreds of cases, with a high percentage of known outcomes ending in blocked or constrained access for legitimate owners or heirs. Key Lessons Custodial arrangements introduce counterparty risk: you rely on the platform’s security, honesty, solvency, and operational competence. History shows these can fail catastrophically even at large, seemingly reputable firms. Self-custody eliminates that counterparty risk but shifts responsibility to the individual (seed phrase security, device integrity, inheritance planning, etc.). Hybrid approaches (e.g., multisig with careful key distribution) aim to balance the two. The repeated failures reinforce the core Bitcoin principle: not your keys, not your coins. Platforms can and do lose or lock customer Bitcoin through negligence, theft, or deliberate misuse.

• 
  Mike Khan (@mikekhanx) reported 53 minutes ago

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

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 58 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.