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:

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 7 minutes ago

  @bitfinex AVOID BITFINEX ! stealing customer money !!

• 
  Curtis Green⚡️ (@ilovepoker) reported 8 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.

• 
  ArsObKSC (@DereckWDew) reported 8 minutes ago

  @GavinMehl It stinks of desperation. The only involvement Craig would have because that he created bitcoin. This seems like Bitfinex oh, **** let's get them before it all implodes move—un tethered or micropenis strategy

• 
  Sheryl | Simple Crypto Advice (@syedaliakber2) reported 9 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???

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 11 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.

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 11 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.

• 
  El Gūapo (@El_Guapooo_) reported 13 minutes ago

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

• 
  BroadSword (@BroadSwordBoy) reported 16 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Go **** yourself you ******* imbecile!! You should know better than to ask something so ******* stupid!! ******* embarrassing for security. Hey @bitfinex you should fire whoever posted this / running this account. I'll make sure no one in my circles uses your platform ever!!!

• 
  Beautyon (@Beautyon_) reported 16 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!

• 
  Ismeidy (@ismeidyfinanzas) reported 18 minutes ago

  2. Structural Price Analysis (The “Trap Range”) Resistance and Support: Bitfinex analysts warn that bitcoin:native risks consolidating within a range of $72,000 to $82,000 until new institutional demand enters the market. Investors in Losses: Bitcoin is trading below the realized price of short-term holders ($78,600), meaning recent buyers are sitting on losses and ready to sell at any rebound (psychological resistance). The major structural resistance is at $85,900. Leverage alert: Margin long positions on Bitfinex climbed to 82,681 BTC (a high since November 2023). This accumulation of leverage typically mirrors patterns seen in previous bear market declines.

• 
  Jacob King (@JacobKinge) reported 21 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.

• 
  RelativelyIrrelevant.vip (@RelIrrelvantVIP) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Charlesdav43874 @IndyBitcoin So when an XMR customer uses Kraken, KuCoin, Bitfinex, Poloniex (all examples) or similar XMR providers; those DAB's know the Customer and the amount of the Digital Asset Business Activity performed on the Customer's behalf. Those XMR DABAs would not be anonymous & are taxable.

• 
  DxM (@diopter_ring) reported 22 minutes ago

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

• 
  Kemo (@K3m0s) reported 22 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

• 
  xgram.io (@xgram_io) reported 23 minutes ago

  @CryptoRank_io @bitfinex The golden era of holding exchange tokens just to farm launchpads and get trading fee discounts is officially on life support. 📉 When $BNB is bleeding out 25% YTD and the only thing keeping its head above water is $LEO at a modest +4.5%, you know the broader meta has fundamentally shifted. Between institutional ETFs vacuuming up passive retail capital and DEXs eating all the on-chain volume, the actual narrative utility for CEX tokens is taking a massive hit in 2026. We went from "deflationary burn mechanics make it ultra-sound money" to just praying for a break-even. The house doesn't always win, apparently!

• 
  Trader Tool Match (@TraderToolMatch) reported 25 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?

• 
  Golden Luco (@GoldenLuco) reported 26 minutes ago

  Bitfinex Alpha suggests key levels to watch for Bitcoin's next move, signaling potential trend shifts. Traders should monitor these support and resistance zones closely. Will Bitcoin break through or bounce back? Stay alert and share your thoughts! #Crypto #Bitcoin #Trading

• 
  Remote Career Africa (@RemoteCareerAfr) reported 29 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.

• 
  Stash Management (@Stashquants) reported 29 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Urgent KYC issue: Compliance directed me to open a ticket, but Support has directed me back to Compliance. I can provide current documents and proof of my legal name change. My account is also under a withdrawal hold, making the 3-day deadline impossible. Need Help.

• 
  0xLaplace 🔺 (@0xlaplaced) reported 29 minutes ago

  Bitfinex survived by making everyone share the wound. Customer balances were cut by about 36%. In return came BFX debt tokens: $1 for every dollar lost. Hold, sell, or swap them for equity. Within eight months, Bitfinex redeemed the tokens. The bitcoin remained gone.

• 
  tarık (@tarkbalakar) reported 33 minutes ago

  BitMex is shutting down. Now BitMart. What's next? Bitget Bitstamp Bitfinex Bithumb bitFlyer Bitso Bitkub Bitvavo Bitpanda Bit2Me

• 
  NineInchTrails (@nineinchtrails) reported 38 minutes ago

  BTC We went lower. And imo BTC looks like it wants to go lower soon again with breaking $60k eventually. Several BOSs. Closed below demand. Closed below CME gap. Closed below HTF range EQ. USDT.D now BOSs after the SFPs after the bullish 3 drives. Very bullish structure. Confirmed accumulation imo. Also crossed several fibs already. Now in supply. But overall imo USDT.D looks like it wants even higher. All on the daily as well. BVOL out of support. BTC Longs on Bitfinex moving up nearing the next supply level that could indicate a possible local bottom of $44k-$48.9k. So a clean HTF redistribution to me here. The level between $68kish and $70kish acted as a strong "downside trampoline" like I thought. CME Gap + FVG + Range EQ + strong bullish level before at the move up. Things further speed up in terms of going down as thought. Don't know if it's just a coincidence and bs or if I turned knowledge into correct learnings. Waiting for a close below $62.kish SL for confirmed SOW. And as far as I get it there's also no real HTF liquidity there. Would support the idea of a further fast move down. And I think if we close below the $60kish low the probability is very high that we could go all the way down to the $44k-48.9k region for the next local bottom afterwards. FIFA World Cup could act as a nice distraction then maybe, to make the herd believe "everything is good, it's already going up again". HTF Bias: still bearish Main Thesis: we could go below the Feb 6th $60.kish low. Invalidation: in case we should close above $90.kish we have a bullish ChoCh on the daily. // As already stated often but again here and there: Below a TA beginner and not trading yet. So just paper trading here for improving TA.

• 
  Matt Chad (@mattymaddog_89) reported 42 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Before your hair cut where you rugged me 60% of my BTC holdings because you got “hacked” **** you I’ll never forget

• 
  8️⃣6️⃣.gwei (@russian_bot_69) reported 43 minutes ago

  @tulipking imo the only way to grow a centralized stablecoin is by having a dominant consumer product take the lead on pushing distribution: bitfinex pushed tether when it was dominant coinbase pushed usdc as second mover, still worked bc it was a rapidly growing coinbase doing the pushing not circle other exchanges now doing same eating market share being a middleman/infra (circle spinoff) just makes you slow to react and anticipate. they need their own dominant consumer app, whether its trading, payments or whatever can get them to dominate distribution if it was an actually 100% decentralized stablecoin like a liquity or raidollar then yeah the long term slow approach of credibly neutral middleman/infra could work. but all circle is offering is assurance of following regulations, which a decade in many players understand how to do themselves now

• 
  Cosimo Capiτal ⚜️ (@CosimoCapital) reported 46 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.

• 
  CryptoJGM (@CryptoJM95) reported 47 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???

• 
  Muntari Abdulhamid (@SupplyDemand29) reported 58 minutes ago

  $BTC BITCOIN BOUNCES TO $64,812 AND ETHEREUM LEADS - BUT DON'T GET TRAPPED Today's market is doing the exact opposite of yesterday and most people will misread it. BTC is up to $64,812 from $64,246 open. Low was $63,267, high $65,176. We bounced $1,500 from yesterday's dump. ETH is at $1,922 up 1.12%, high $1,936 low $1,872. ETH/BTC at 0.0297 - ETH is beating BTC again. So what changed in 24 hours? Yesterday Korea's KOSPI crashed 10% and dragged us to $63K. Today Korea crashed again and Bitcoin went UP toward $64K. That's called decoupling. Bitfinex predicted this. When stress is rates-driven, BTC dumps with stocks. When stress is stock-specific like chipmakers Samsung and SK Hynix, BTC decouples and holds. That's exactly what happened today. Second, Fed relief. The panic before Fed is over. Market is positioned. Bitcoin held the $63K support and 50-day EMA at $65,089 area, printed its 4th weekly gain structure intact.

• 
  squid (@hopium_dealer) reported 1 hour ago

  amount is small relative to liquidity. Also, reminiscent of 2016 bitfinex heist, stolen BTC is notoriously hard to exit at size. marginal as supply for months probably. market reaction to this terrible news, triple-bottoming at $62.5k support, is surprisingly bullish.

• 
  Cloakd ⌛ (@CloakdDev) reported 1 hour 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

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 1 hour ago

  The Coldcard attacker has gone back to the large wallets. Wave one averaged 0.91 bitcoin per address. Waves two and three collapsed to 0.05 and 0.11 bitcoin:native, which looked like an operator running out of targets. Galaxy's Alex Thorn flagged a suspected fourth wave on Monday averaging 0.82. Nobody finds fresh large wallets in a keyspace that has already been emptied. The earlier passes did not exhaust the supply. They had not looked everywhere. Going back up the balance ladder points to a new derivation path or address type the first sweeps never scanned, which means the exposed population is larger than three days of falling averages suggested. The pace says the same thing. Thorn counted 218 transactions across blocks 960,778 to 960,792, moving over 380 bitcoin from 462 addresses into 210 fresh destinations. Sweeps ran at 13.8 per block against a pre-incident baseline of 0.3, roughly 46 times the normal rate. The confirmed total is still 1,367.05 bitcoin, about 88.6 million dollars, from 4,585 addresses across three waves. Figures above 100 million, or address counts near 7,000, run ahead of Galaxy's published tracking, and Galaxy says it has not computationally confirmed that every one of those addresses came from weak Coldcard entropy. Coinkite halted shipments and destroyed its remaining inventory carrying the flawed firmware. It has asked victims to keep their devices rather than wipe them while its legal team works with law enforcement. Manufacturers do not destroy their own stock over a contained incident. Bitcoin itself cannot blacklist any of this. There is no issuer, no chargeback, no stolen flag inside a transaction output. A node checks whether a signature is valid, never whether the signer had any right to the key. The theft is cryptographically perfect and legally void at the same time. Everything outside the protocol works differently. Analytics firms can tag the exact outputs, exchanges can refuse the deposits, custodians can freeze accounts, and courts can order seizure. The coins stay spendable between two strangers and become close to unusable anywhere that checks identity. That gap is clearly why this may not be finished for the attacker. The Justice Department recovered 63.7 bitcoin from the Colonial Pipeline ransom, seized more than 94,000 from the Bitfinex theft, and took 50,676 from a Silk Road thief nearly a decade after the crime. None of it reversed a transaction. Each one required the holder to eventually touch something that asks who you are. For anyone still sitting on a seed made during that firmware window, the absence of a sweep is not evidence of safety. It may only mean your derivation path has not been scanned yet. Stay safe!!