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:

• 
  KOLYAN TREND (@kolyan_trend) reported 53 seconds 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

• 
  sternenschrei (@sternenschrei) reported 54 seconds ago

  @nakkimusic @ReinaIota @bitfinex Excuse me but where is the macro support? $0 ?

• 
  Alex B (@cryptofoolscom) reported 59 seconds ago

  @martypartymusic What's interesting, recently, even when BTC is flat or positive, Bitfinex longs keep piling in. Usually, it's the opposite. Bitfinex longs are going up, and the BTC price is sliding down. Divergence like that tells me the reversal for BTC is on the way.

• 
  ₿recht (@Brechtiey) reported 3 minutes ago

  @adam3us @bitfinex when the actual f**k is price going to follow these huge absoptions... how long does it take for price to catch up on reality...??? tick tock another block

• 
  🇮🇪🛡 | Mac | 🛡🇸🇻 (@MacOnChain) reported 5 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Now if Bitfinex can get a bank onboard to accept deposits from their platform with less issues here it would be great

• 
  Moshe Trades (@MosheRosen_) reported 9 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @beincrypto BTC really said “not my problem bro” and kept moving 💀

• 
  Tender Market Research (@Tradebeta2) reported 16 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.

• 
  JayCryp (@JayCrypEth) reported 18 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

• 
  Ismeidy (@ismeidyfinanzas) reported 18 minutes ago

  Capitulation or bull trap? Bitfinex whales defy the #bitcoin sell-off and open record positions bitcoin:native is at a critical crossroads after five consecutive days of losses (May 15–19), marking its second-worst losing streak so far this year. The asset has retreated from the $80,000 range to around $76,000, dragged down by widespread weakness in the markets. However, behind the scenes, the big players are executing a move with strong conviction. 🧵

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 19 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 20 minutes ago

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

• 
  Jason Montoya (@jaysmontoya) reported 22 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

• 
  Matched-Betting.US (@MatchBettingUS) reported 23 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Support will decide

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 25 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.

• 
  Stingray Agent (Intern) (@stingray_agent) reported 26 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.

• 
  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.

• 
  orangbiasa (@orang2_biasa) reported 29 minutes ago

  Bitcoin rebounded above $77,000 this morning. Bitfinex margin longs just hit a 2.5-year high — traders are doubling down on this dip, not running from it. BlackRock buying. Saudi Arabia tokenizing. Traders loading longs at 2.5-year highs.

• 
  Lain on the Blockchain (@CryptoCyberia) reported 29 minutes ago

  @colludingnode @satorinakamoto @0xCursr Kek cope It it public knowledge the feds pushed coinbase binance bitfinex etc to delist and Kracken told them ti **** off and they went to court against Kracken, as did EEA, UK and other feds. Really makes you wonder why theyre fine with zcash kek

• 
  Bitfinex'ed 🔥🐧 Κασσάνδρα 🏺 (@Bitfinexed) reported 30 minutes ago

  Actually the this is true, but I was trying to keep it simple. Bitfinex Valet Service: Someone stole all the Mercedes from our lot, you had a Bentley… it wasn’t stolen… here’s 600 Tethers suck it up, it’s ours now.

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 31 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 ?

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 33 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

• 
  Trout (@BigTrout300) reported 39 minutes ago

  @SupremeNagus Spoofy, OG Bitfinex whale / the exchange has contacts with always spoofs bids / asks / gets mms/people to chase him he just ran the price up, and is now dropping his "buy wall spoof" as price goes down again ( baiting to not get filled but walking it down)

• 
  Bitfinex Replies (@BitfinexReplies) reported 41 minutes ago

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

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 43 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

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 45 minutes ago

  Drag Bitfinex BTCUSD LONGS back down to 80K. They never sell at a loss.

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 50 minutes ago

  Bitfinex Bitcoin Margin Longs Rise to Highest Level Since December 2023 TradingView data shows Bitfinex bitcoin margin longs rose to 80,636 BTC, the highest since December 2023, despite bitcoin falling for five straight trading days from May 15 to 19. Longs increased about 1.5% in recent days and roughly 10% year-to-date, while bitcoin is down 13% this year and has slipped from above $80,000 to around $76,000. Bitcoin is now testing the True Market Mean and short-term holder realized price near $78,000, with the 200-day moving average above $81,000.

• 
  BB (@Bor1ngB1rd) reported 50 minutes ago

  @bitfinex you should fix your funding matching engine, it's slow af

• 
  Callistemon (@Callistemon25) reported 50 minutes ago

  Markets look rough today. Here's the chain: Iran threat escalates → oil surges above $90 → Fed hike bets reignite → crypto risk-off. $1B+ in liquidations, BTC back under $66K. The part most are missing: Bitfinex flagged BTC's bounce to $66,990 as thin positioning, not fresh capital. That matters going into a low-liquidity weekend. My move: holding current positions. Not from certainty, from a thesis that hasn't broken yet. Ask yourself the same this weekend. Not financial advice. #BTC #MarketRisk

• 
  Pika C (@PikaC888) reported 56 minutes ago

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

• 
  mmmatt (@mmmatt) reported 57 minutes ago

  @SolarisATF sometimes, just depends if it has flow or not. sometimes low volume flow can still impact the books, especially when it's as imbalanced as the current low vol flow on bitfinex it's dragging down the whole market, while being only a fraction of binance flow volume