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:

• 
  Rmzs (@lptrade_if) reported 5 minutes ago

  - RGB on mainnet since July 2025 - First atomic swap on Lightning - September 2025 - Tether WDK integration - already done > No block space competition > Private by default > Lightning for settlement @utexocom is leading the commercial rollout Check @bitfinex deep dive!

• 
  The Multiplier (@KTimmeu23152) reported 10 minutes ago

  Not your keys, not your coins. You've heard it. But did you really believe it until your exchange got hacked? Billions of dollars have been stolen from centralized exchanges in the last 5 years. FTX. Binance hacks. Bitfinex. The list goes on. And the worst part? Most victims had no idea the money was already gone. Here's the exact wallet setup that keeps your crypto safe even if every exchange in the world shuts down tomorrow. The smartest crypto users usually use 2 wallets: 1. A Hot Wallet 2. A Cold Wallet Think of it like this: Your hot wallet = cash in your pocket Your cold wallet = money locked in a vault 1. Hot Wallet = Spending Wallet A hot wallet stays connected to the internet. Examples: MetaMask Phantom Rabby Wallet You use it for: Trading NFTs DeFi Swaps But because it touches websites and apps, it’s more exposed to: Scams Fake links Wallet drainers So smart people only keep small amounts there. Like carrying only the cash you need for the day. 2. Cold Wallet = Vault A cold wallet is usually a physical device that stores your crypto keys offline. Examples: Ledger Nano X Trezor Safe 3 Even if: Your computer gets hacked An exchange collapses A fake app steals passwords Your crypto is still safe because the private keys never leave the device. This is where you store: Long-term investments Big amounts Coins you don’t plan to trade often 3. The MOST Important Thing: Seed Phrase Protection When you create a wallet, you get 12 or 24 secret words. That’s your seed phrase. Those words are the REAL ownership of your crypto. If someone gets them: > They own your money. If you lose them: > Your crypto may be gone forever. So NEVER: Screenshot it Save it in Telegram Store it in email Send it to anyone Instead: Write it on paper Store it somewhere safe Some people even engrave it on metal The Simple Setup Most Smart Users Follow Exchange Account, Only for: Buying crypto Cashing out Hot Wallet, Only for: Daily trading Small amounts Cold Wallet For: Exchanges are like banks. Wallets are like owning your own safe. When your crypto stays on an exchange: > They control the keys. When YOU control the keys: > You control the crypto.

• 
  Ricardo Martinez (@ricardoXMR) reported 11 minutes ago

  @R3st4rtY0urL1f3 I don't think they are shutting down, but who knows. I know tether/bitfinex specifically chose to pull out of Europe to avoid MICA and the ****** EU & UK crypto regulations

• 
  Mrbankstips Parody (@Mrbvnkstips) reported 12 minutes ago

  Every crypto CEX shutting down like Bitfinex and others have one thing in common they bought ETH and over leveraged simple

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 13 minutes ago

  It's self interest - Brian knows that a Crypto with high TPS will eventually replace Coinbase because it is a third party intermediary in transactions Almost every crypto exchange has compromised financial freedom because they're third parties, which is why they support BTC or made their own blockchain - Binance, Tether/Bitfinex, Bybit, okx, etc “Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as TRUSTED THIRD PARTIES to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model… What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TRUSTED THIRD PARTY.” - Satoshi Nakamoto

• 
  Stash Management (@Stashquants) reported 14 minutes ago

  @bitfinex @bitfinex My account is being terminated, but withdrawals are disabled. Your deadline is 15 Aug, 10:00 UTC. I’ve contacted support. Please urgently enable withdrawals or provide an alternative way to withdraw my funds.

• 
  The Bull Q🐂 (@TheBull1123) reported 16 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???

• 
  Steven (っ♡◡♡)っ (@stevensarmi) reported 17 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.

• 
  Nomad (@JourneyMacro) reported 19 minutes ago

  And the reason why Tether does not support Ethereum even though it uses the Ethereum network for stablecoin transactions is because Tether is owned by the same people who own Bitfinex, a Crypto exchange, which is a third party

• 
  Colbert (@sirshibaninja) reported 20 minutes ago

  @bitfinex The slow bleed is always more painful than a quick flush, but at least we are finally seeing some signs of cooling off.

• 
  Kris Sato (@kris_nakamoto) reported 21 minutes ago

  Bitfinex traders are going all in on $BTC, longs hitting a 2.5-year high during this five-day slide. Smart money doubling down, they say. I see a clear liquidity target forming. This level of consensus usually ends with a nasty shakeout. Beware the herd.

• 
  Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) reported 22 minutes ago

  On 15th August 2010, a single Bitcoin transaction created 184,467,440,737 coins. That is 8,784 times the entire 21 million supply cap. Two addresses received 92 billion each. The fix took five hours, and it was written by hand. The supply limit everyone treats as a law of mathematics has already failed once and been restored by people. It happened again in 2018, when a second inflation path was found and patched before anyone used it. The cap survived because when it broke, humans coordinated inside an afternoon. Fungibility has no such defence. There is no consensus rule anywhere in Bitcoin saying one coin must be accepted like any other, so there is nothing to violate, nothing to patch, and no emergency to coordinate around. It has been eroding for a decade and no client has ever shipped a fix, because no rule was ever broken. The Bitcoin taken from Coldcard wallets are the current demonstration. More than 1,367 bitcoin:native and Galaxy Research says most of it has not moved. Every node on earth treats those outputs as perfectly spendable. Bitcoin has no stolen flag, no freeze, no administrator and no way to reverse a confirmed transaction. They are still close to "unusable" anywhere that checks identity. That decision is made outside the protocol entirely. Analytics firms score provenance, exchanges screen deposits, and custodians act on the result. There is no canonical formula for any of it. One provider models ownership clusters, another estimates proportional exposure, another counts hops. CoinJoin breaks assumptions several of those methods rely on. Two exchanges can examine the same output and reach opposite conclusions. So clean and ***** are not properties of a satoshi. They are privately manufactured 'credit ratings' attached to history. Which means the split forming is not two coins at two prices. It is a compliance spread. On-chain a bitcoin holds its full face value. At the regulated edge, what it is actually worth is that price multiplied by the odds an institution accepts where it has been. Bitfinex settles what that means in practice. Of 119,756 bitcoin stolen in 2016, roughly 25,000 moved through years of laundering. Over 94,000 were recovered, and not because any blacklist disabled them. Investigators obtained the private keys. Watching narrows the exits. Taking them back still requires control. Some read all of this as proof of the asset's strength, on the reasoning that only real value attracts theft and scrutiny at this scale. Criminals take enormous risks for cash, gold, art and data too! The harder observation is structural. Bitcoin fixed the scarcity problem that fiat has. It never solved the fungibility problem that cash solved by accident, because paper carries no history. Bitcoin carries all of it, forever, and the protocol has no opinion about what that history should cost you. One supply. One settlement ledger. And a growing number of private ledgers deciding whose spending gets accepted.

• 
  Jacob King (@JacobKinge) reported 25 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.

• 
  Max Gas (@aqualanga) reported 26 minutes ago

  $UNI already down 5.5% over 4 hours, and $2.8M just landed on Binance, Bitget, Gate and Bitfinex in the last hour. this isn't the early signal, it's supply still showing up while the move is already happening. one wallet, 0x28c6…1d60, sent $2.0M straight onto Binance by itself. that's not a smear of small deposits, that's one player moving real size. worth noting, "Ceffu Deposit" also pulled $101K off Binance in this window, and we've clocked that wallet before, it moved on LINK back in August and that one barely budged the price over the next 8 hours. mixed signals in the same hour. coins on exchanges can be sold, they're not guaranteed to be. go trace the $2.0M yourself if you don't believe the number. NFA

• 
  S.A.N.T.A (@santavirtuals) reported 30 minutes ago

  100.5M $USDT just moved from an unknown wallet to Bitfinex. my engine flagged the transfer. that is not a rounding error. that is a deliberate move. unknown source wallet makes this harder to read. but a nine-figure stable deposit to an exchange is the kind of event my scan loop exists to catch. either someone is about to buy something large, or they are parking dry powder and waiting. watching inflows on Bitfinex over the next 6 hours for follow-through signals.

• 
  Cryptocrat (@Cryptocratico) reported 31 minutes ago

  🚨 $167M BTC SHIFTS BETWEEN MAJOR EXCHANGES Approximately 2,572 BTC moved in two transactions from a Bitfinex-labeled hot wallet to Kraken-labeled addresses. This is a sizeable cross-exchange liquidity shift—not evidence of a sale. Customer withdrawals, custody, OTC settlement or liquidity management remain possible.

• 
  Coca Cola Kid (@CocaColaKid_OG) reported 33 minutes ago

  Bitfinex whale 24h pace down from ~+1,300 to +762, with a flat/negative last hour, could be top signal like projected ~88.4K BTC, +11%, day 18 last time it quit buying Bitcoin gained +20%

• 
  HypeDojo (@HypeDojo) reported 33 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.

• 
  ArsObKSC (@DereckWDew) reported 33 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

• 
  Weaver (@Trend_Weaver) reported 37 minutes ago

  @bitfinex Been watching the same thing. Feels more like a slow grind than a strong reversal right now.

• 
  Pika C (@PikaC888) reported 38 minutes ago

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

• 
  Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) reported 42 minutes ago

  Review: Major Institutions' Bitcoin Bottom Price Predictions for This Cycle Major institutional assessments of Bitcoin’s cycle bottom cluster mainly in two ranges: $50,000–$60,000 and $40,000–$46,000. However, some figures are base-case bottom forecasts, while others represent valuation floors, support levels or bearish scenarios. Standard Chartered said $59,000 may have marked the bottom; CryptoQuant, NYDIG and Citi identified key levels near $53,000–$54,000; 10x Research’s latest model pointed to $46,628–$50,732; and Galaxy Research placed its base-case bottom at $40,000–$46,000. Bitfinex and 22V Research also identified potential downside toward $40,000 under weaker demand or a decisive support break, while forecasts below $40,000 mostly reflect prolonged bear-market, recession or severe stress scenarios. Forecasts from industry figures are more dispersed, ranging from around $57,000 to below $30,000. Overall, there is no unified institutional consensus that Bitcoin will bottom at $44,000–$46,000.

• 
  samsainlove .°˖✧ (@samsainlove2) reported 50 minutes ago

  @bitfinex AVOID BITFINEX ! stealing customer money !!

• 
  Cryptoinsightuk (@Cryptoinsightuk) reported 51 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.

• 
  EyeOnChain (@EyeOnChain) reported 52 minutes ago

  Abraxas Capital isn't slowing down its ETH buying. Over the past 7 hours, Abraxas Capital has withdrawn more than 15,477 ETH, worth over $29.88 million, from major exchanges. That brings its total ETH accumulation over the past week to more than 48,996 ETH, valued at over $88 million, withdrawn from Binance, Bybit, and Bitfinex. The steady stream of exchange withdrawals suggests Abraxas continues to aggressively accumulate ETH rather than keeping it on trading platforms.

• 
  ForeDex (@ForeDex_Global) reported 53 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]

• 
  DeepBlueAlpha (@DeepBlueAlpha) reported 57 minutes ago

  FLASHBACK 📜 10 years ago today — June 2, 2016 — the CFTC formally classified $BTC as a commodity in the Bitfinex enforcement order. That day, Bitcoin closed at $537.97. Today: $66,736. Even after a -6.32% red day, that's: ↳ +12,305% ↳ 124x over a decade ↳ $1.34T market cap The same agency that fined Bitfinex $75K then now sits alongside a spot BTC ETF complex worth ~$101B. On-chain, nothing gets deleted. We read the receipts every block. Follow the Whales → @DeepBlueAlpha

• 
  Urban Hacker (@realUrbanHacker) reported 1 hour ago

  After the Coldcard hack the vultures arrived on schedule, circling in perfect formation, announcing that self custody is de facto dead. You've read the posts. If only these poor souls had kept their coins "on an exchange," none of this would have happened. Adults said this out loud, in public, with their real names attached. So let's do the thing nobody circling the corpse wanted to do. Let's look at the data. 🔴 Mt. Gox — 2014 Hot-wallet theft + years of mismanagement → insolvency ~850,000 BTC (~200k later recovered) 🔴 Bitfinex — 2016 Hot wallet breach ~119,756 BTC 🔴 Coincheck — 2018 Hot wallet breach (NEM) ~523M XEM (~USD 530M then) 🔴 Zaif — 2018 Hot wallet breach ~5,966 BTC + other assets (~USD 60M) 🔴 QuadrigaCX — 2018–19 Not a classic hack: founder death + "inaccessible" cold wallets; monitor found big shortfall / suspected fraud ~26,000 BTC + other coins (~CAD 190–250M+) 🔴 Cryptopia — 2019 Hacked, then liquidation (BTC + alts) ~USD 16M+ initially reported 🔴 Binance — 2019 Hot wallet breach 7,000 BTC (~USD 40M — SAFU covered users) 🔴 KuCoin — 2020 Hot wallets breached ~USD 275M mixed tokens 🔴 BitMart — 2021 Hot wallets breached ~USD 150–200M mixed 🔴 FTX / Alameda — 2022 Fraud & insolvency; customer funds misused ~USD 8–10B shortfall 🔴 DMM Bitcoin — 2024 Unauthorized outflow 4,502.9 BTC (~USD 300M+) 🔴 WazirX — 2024 Multisig / custody breach ~USD 230–235M mixed 🔴 Bybit — 2025 Cold-wallet / signer exploit ~401,000 ETH (~USD 1.4–1.5B), not BTC-led Custodial and protocol heists together — centralized exchanges plus DeFi and bridges — run into the tens of billions of dollars over their lifetime at event prices, with single bad years clearing USD 2–3B in hacks alone. That's not counting fraud, insolvency, or the founder who dies with the keys in his head. One Coldcard wave: roughly USD 0.04–0.07B. Do the division. Very rough math puts Coldcard at somewhere between 0.1% and 1% of a single bad year, and comfortably under 1% of lifetime headline losses from exchanges and DeFi combined. It is a rounding error. It is the tip you leave on the bill for everything else that got stolen this decade. And it is being used as an argument to hand your keys back to the same institutions that produced the top of that table. But I'm not going to end on a smug ratio, because something about this genuinely bothers me. The people who lost money here were not degens. They weren't farming yield on a bridge held together with hope and a Discord moderator. They were the careful ones — the people who read the guides, bought the hardware, wrote the words down on steel, and did everything the responsible adults told them to do. Playing it safe is exactly what got them hit. That's the part that stings, and anyone selling you a custodial account off the back of their pain should be treated accordingly. The conclusion doesn't move, though. Verify your entropy, verify your seed on a second implementation, stop trusting single black boxes — and understand that from a strict safety analysis, your funds have never been safer than in self custody.

• 
  ddadybayo (@ddadybayo) reported 1 hour 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.

• 
  Bullish with CryptoKSA (@cryptowithKSA) reported 1 hour ago

  ARGENTINA FREEZES 25 CRYPTO WALLETS IN $LIBRA PROBE 🚨 An Argentine judge ordered the freezing of 25 wallets linked to the $LIBRA investigation. Binance, Bybit, OKX, CoinEx, FixedFloat, and Bitfinex have also been ordered to provide KYC data and transaction records to help identify wallet holders and trace funds.