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:

• 
  Bitcoin Regime (@BitPrintzz) reported 2 minutes ago

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

• 
  Crypto Noob (@cryptonoobini) reported 5 minutes ago

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

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 6 minutes ago

  @bitfinex AVOID BITFINEX ! stealing customer money !!

• 
  BlackIntus (@Blackintus) reported 6 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

• 
  Jason Montoya (@jaysmontoya) reported 7 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

• 
  JP_OptionsDeFi (@DefiLtam) reported 10 minutes ago

  @bitfinex And what ******** does this damn industry that wants to destroy wealth or create it, damn Chinese and American demons creating their patterns of cursed cycles.

• 
  DA₿OLOSKOV (@daboloskov) reported 10 minutes ago

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 Your support form certificate is no signed anymore and outdated.

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 11 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.

• 
  HypeDojo (@HypeDojo) reported 17 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.

• 
  Cosimo Capiτal ⚜️ (@CosimoCapital) reported 18 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.

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 22 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]

• 
  Kathlyn Tuccillo (@KathlynTuc77441) reported 26 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

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 28 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.

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 28 minutes ago

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

• 
  Sheryl | Simple Crypto Advice (@syedaliakber2) reported 31 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???

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 32 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

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 35 minutes ago

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

• 
  Jacob King (@JacobKinge) reported 37 minutes 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.

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 37 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.

• 
  Erik (@ero_crypto) reported 37 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.

• 
  CryptoSuzy888 (@CryptoSuzy888) reported 38 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.

• 
  Wall Street NYC Quant. bitcoin-fund-manager.com (@BITCOINFUNDMGR) reported 38 minutes ago

  WTF is going on with $leo by @bitfinex? Are they still buying it back to add to treasury? Price is up 10x continually last 5 years. It looks just like bitcoin when under $100. Also looks like $bnb in 2017. Might be smart to hold a few. Remember. Bitfinex owns USDT Tether. They can do anything they want.

• 
  Trout (@BigTrout300) reported 38 minutes ago

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

• 
  Hovermere (@Hovermere) reported 42 minutes ago

  4/10 Cash is not flowing to “the RWA market.” It is flowing to whoever already owns the stack. Alkemya turns idle wire into working capital for GTX. Bitfinex Securities gets a record commodity listing under El Salvador’s rules. Vault, audit, and venues get paid for the plumbing whether a deep bid shows up or not. Subscribers only start getting paid after the waterfall moves: capital back, 6% preferred, then 80% of surplus. Until a distribution hits, outside money is the product being tested.

• 
  Brutal Crypto Brief (@BrutalDegenX) reported 43 minutes ago

  475K $ETH pulled off exchanges in ONE week - Binance, Bitfinex, OKX, Gemini all bleeding outflows 👀 June avg return is -7.59%, ETH already down 16% this month - and degens are STILL buying the dip Brave or stupid, we'll find out $ETH #Ethereum

• 
  Rahul K (@iamrahulinc) reported 47 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%.

• 
  2weed 🇵🇸 (@TAUHEED5) reported 47 minutes ago

  @CW8900 Wtf is bitfinex whale

• 
  Octopus (@Octop3s) reported 47 minutes ago

  every BIT exchange is shutting down. never see a world where Bitfinex would ever shut down. there’s just too much money in the reserves.

• 
  Skin In The Game (@SITGnews) reported 49 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.

• 
  Whistleblower (@whistleblowerTA) reported 55 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.