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:

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 4 minutes ago

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

• 
  Matched-Betting.US (@MatchBettingUS) reported 5 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Support will decide

• 
  Rahul K (@iamrahulinc) reported 7 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%.

• 
  Lain on the Blockchain (@CryptoCyberia) reported 10 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

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 10 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!

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 13 minutes ago

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

• 
  Whistleblower (@whistleblowerTA) reported 14 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.

• 
  Bittopia (@Bittopia_) reported 15 minutes ago

  🧱 155,000 $BTC HAVE FORMED A NEW COST-BASIS CLUSTER Bitfinex reported that roughly 155,000 BTC moved into the $62K–$65K cost-basis range during the latest pullback. The zone represents about 0.7% of circulating supply and became the market’s largest onchain cost-basis concentration. Why it matters: A growing cluster during a decline can indicate that buyers absorbed supply instead of holders exiting broadly. But it is not automatic support. If price revisits the range, those holders can defend their entry, hold through volatility or become potential sellers. The signal is also mixed with thinner spot volume, a $61.5M weekly outflow from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs and defensive options positioning. Accumulation data explains positioning. It does not guarantee direction. Disclaimer: Onchain cost-basis models use estimates and should not be treated as precise trading signals. @bitfinex | $BTC #Bitcoin #OnchainData #CryptoMarkets

• 
  Chiutoshi Echomoto【₿=∞/21M】 (@Echochiu2) reported 15 minutes ago

  GM Brothers and Sisters ✅Bitcoin price remains weak Despite the July U.S. CPI data coming in as expected, Bitcoin failed to react positively and dropped below $63,500, erasing earlier gains. The price is currently hovering around the $63,000 level and underperforming relative to U.S. equities and other risk assets. ✅Shift in Federal Reserve rate expectations Combined with recent soft labor-market data, the in-line CPI print has pushed the probability of the Fed holding rates steady at the September meeting up to 60%. This is generally viewed as a supportive environment for crypto and risk assets, though Bitcoin has not yet shown a clear positive response. ✅Analysts warn of weakening support Trader Rekt Capital notes that the ~$63,000 support level is progressively weakening, with bounce sizes shrinking from 6.27% → 5.83% → 3.18% → just 1.15%. He warns that “at some point the bounces will become so weak that the floor will simply break.” Bitfinex research also highlights strong resistance in the $65,000–$65,500 zone, which Bitcoin has failed to close above since late July. ✅What to watch next Attention now turns to Thursday’s July Producer Price Index data, which could influence market volatility and the elevated downside protection premiums currently seen in Bitcoin options markets. －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－ Plan accordingly & Choose wisely ✨May your life radiant with Bitcoin✨ bitcoin:native

• 
  Rheticus ⚡️ (@RheticusRhombus) reported 17 minutes ago

  @bitfinex I bought 1 sat at the pico top Now **** off

• 
  𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸XRP (@BankXRP) reported 19 minutes ago

  XRP longs on Bitfinex just printed a massive round trip. Positions surged from 4.9M in June to a peak of 6.45M in late August one of the biggest leverage buildups this cycle. Now unwinding: longs down to 5.62M, price back to $1.41 (-1.61% today). Leverage got ahead of itself. Worth watching if this flushes further or finds support here.

• 
  Cryptoinsightuk (@Cryptoinsightuk) reported 21 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.

• 
  CaptSpectacular (@CaptSpectacular) reported 25 minutes ago

  @bitcoinmunger @bitfinex @tradingview Just another avenue for capitulation. Now we got etfs, saylor ponzi and this. ****.

• 
  Kryptos Opus (@kryptosopus) reported 26 minutes ago

  @lush_amorelli @BitcoinMagazine @glxyresearch Tell that to Bitfinex. Hackers sat on 120k BTC for 6 years and still got busted trying to cash out in 2022. The coins didn't vanish, the feds just waited them out. Stolen bitcoin is a ticking clock, not a brick. Terrible ROI, sure, but "impossible" is doing a lot of lifting there

• 
  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

• 
  JP_OptionsDeFi (@DefiLtam) reported 30 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.

• 
  Kemo (@K3m0s) reported 32 minutes ago

  @tobitdogg @BitQua Not on Tradingview BTCUSD INDEX, CRYPTO, or Bitfinex charts. Their 2015 bear = 90 weeks & 2016-17 bull is 121. Bitfinex was the #1 exchange by volume outside China, whose exchanges were shut down and excluded from data. i.e. you have to ignore the #1 data source to get this

• 
  Julian (@Julian_a35k) reported 33 minutes ago

  As long as Bitfinex whales are accumulating longs we are not near a cycle bottom and this chart is telling pretty much the truth about the current situation. Historically every time when they were opening longs Bitcoin went down. But as soon as this reverses a bullrun could accelerate fast.

• 
  DxM (@diopter_ring) reported 41 minutes ago

  @WuBlockchain Bitfinex down 59.7% is brutal rest of the market dipped but thats a straight cliff

• 
  Morphlin (@morphlin_com) reported 44 minutes ago

  RT @BFXSecurities: Bitfinex customers previously needed a separate sub-account to access tokenised securities. That requirement is gone. R…

• 
  Thomas (@ThomasOyxxx) reported 47 minutes ago

  𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐞. Culture isn’t designed. It’s discovered, usually by accident. A toy photo, a broken render, a nickname that stuck. That’s how $FEFER was born. Not from a whitepaper, not from a marketing plan. From CT deciding a jaw that never loaded was funnier than anything a team could have scripted. ➜ First launch failed ➜ Team stepped back ➜ Community didn’t That sequence matters more than people give it credit for. Most memes die the moment the original push loses steam. Fefer got a second life because the people holding it treated the token like it was worth continuing, not restarting. ➜ Relaunched on @coinsdot + @Stable ➜ Snapshot of 4,827 original holders ➜ Airdropped directly, no claim forms, nobody left behind That’s not a small detail. Snapshotting the original holders instead of starting a fresh cap table is the difference between “new project borrowing an old joke” and “same community, new chapter.” Where it stands right now: ➜ $3.9M market cap ➜ $569K liquidity ➜ Live on a USDT-powered L1 backed by Bitfinex and PayPal Ventures Stable is still early. Its identity is still being written in real time, and the projects active in it now are the ones that end up shaping what people associate with the chain later. $FEFER isn’t trying to win on utility. It’s trying to win on being unforgettable, and a meme that survives its own failed launch and still gets airdropped back to the exact people who believed in it the first time is hard to forget. Nobody decides which meme becomes the face of a chain. The timeline does. 👀 Fefer didn’t restart. Fefer continued. CA: 0xDEeE8f25fe3B5C33AeF78637278ACBFF23EeBFa6 Always DYOR and verify the contract before interacting. @savefefer

• 
  Rob Leder 🟥 (@rleder) reported 47 minutes ago

  @romanwagmi @notgrubles The first guy used a paid account with a public blockstream explorer. I’d bet they are circling in on him. The follow-ons need to be smart enough not to screw up going forward. The Bitfinex hackers were caught after 6 years. People get lazy and make mistakes, which you can’t do when a 3-letter agency has a task force specifically dedicated to hunting you down.

• 
  No Quarter Brandolini 110 IQ Small Blocker (@FreeSpeechBTC21) reported 50 minutes ago

  @BlueDavid BitMex went down.. is Bitfinex next?

• 
  El Gūapo (@El_Guapooo_) reported 51 minutes ago

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

• 
  Remote Career Africa (@RemoteCareerAfr) reported 51 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.

• 
  Exo (@ExoTricks) reported 52 minutes ago

  @bitfinex That’s a big shift. $73.5K turning from resistance into support would be a really solid sign for BTC.

• 
  Solana Sensei (@SolanaSensei) reported 53 minutes ago

  @Ryanhlx Oh **** it’s @bitfinex token apparently lol I didnt know

• 
  ₿arnabyTheStoic (@BarnabyTheStoic) reported 54 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Wtf are you thinking asking this

• 
  waffles (@WaffleHouseGuy1) reported 60 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Will you support Luke coin?

• 
  Samson Mow (@Excellion) reported 1 hour 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.