Talk:Bitfinex

Bitfinex is sufficiently notable for own article

Bitfinix, in my opinion, meets WP:GNG, and could have its own article. Many many sources out there. Operated from 20120 through present, in 2016. N2e (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --Nemo 16:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

hack==

Bitfinex has been hacked, and some US$65 million lost in the exploit. A summary of the exploit, and what is known about the hack last week, is covered in this news article. http://www.coindesk.com/bitfinex-examined-bitcoin-exchange/. With $65 million lost, many other financial publications have written on the story. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was detailed on this page, but split into its own article a while ago: Bitfinex hack. Not sure why that was done, but any information about a hack of an exchange should definitely not be in a separate article. Dnivi3 (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Using "controversial" in the lead

@Smallbones: I believe that it is a WP:WEASEL word to imply editorial opinion. What reliable source describes the exchange as "controversial"? Is it a widely used term or a fringe view? Should it be in the lead? Retimuko (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing weaselly about the word "controversial". Everything in the article is about a controversy. The lede should summarize the article and "controversial" is the perfect word to summarize everything described in the article. Perhaps you're suggesting that we have to have a source that uses the word "controversial". Not at all, we are allowed to use our own words to describe the firm - quotes are actually limited.

But just in case that is what you mean, please see

• Controversial Bitcoin Exchange Bitfinex and Startup Tether Receives Subpoenas from CFTC,
• World’s Largest Bitcoin Exchange, Bitfinex, Threatens Critics With Legal Action,
• How Bitfinex, Tether are raising eyebrows in the cryptocurrency market, and
• Commentary: The Overlooked Actor That Could Crash Bitcoin.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

> There is nothing weaselly about the word "controversial".

It is in the list of "contentious labels". The advice is: "Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight."

Let's follow this advice in this article. Retimuko (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not. There is absolutely nothing contentious about using "controversial" in this case. WP:MOS is a guideline that should be used with occasional exceptions. Since "controversial" is not contentious in this case, the guideline does not apply. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

> There is absolutely nothing contentious about using "controversial" in this case.

I disagree. The word implies an opinion. You dismiss the rules too easily. We should at least use in-text attribution like "such and such source described the exchange as controversial[reference]". And, perhaps, not in the lead. Retimuko (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

> There is absolutely nothing contentious about using "controversial" in this case.

I disagree also. For example, what about so-called "controversial" topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox. "Controversial" is not an encyclopedia-like word. You can put it into sub-sections but putting it in the lead makes this article more "newspaper-like". Its meaning seems vague. For example, is Donald Trump a "controversial president"? Linuxo (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to ask that we defer to our sources. [1] uses "famously opaque" for bitfinex. [2] states that tether is the most prominent and controversial of the pegged cryptocurrencies. So I'll try to edit to use those to describe bitfinex and tether respectively. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

and there are the 4 sources given at the start of this section. Please leave "controversial" in the lede, whatever you do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it. Smallbones, you have added controversial in the lede to a number of cryptocurrency articles and it is an WP:UNDUE issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

See warning at top of this page, 1RR restriction

A couple of newbies just came in and removed some straightforward facts from the lede. Actually, there were several reverts, which violates the 1RR restriction. Let's leave the facts in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

I would like to request the removal of the following sentence: "The exchange's access to U.S. dollar payments and withdrawals has been curtailed.". Bitfinex is one of 3 cryptocurrency exchanges with access to USD, GBP, JPY and EURO deposits and withdrawals, for which reason this point doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's an edit put in place by Smallbones, who, despite his seemingly objective approach to editing the page, is eager to make sure that this line, despite its lack of backing, remains as one of the first lines. Themainexchange (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Not quite sure where to include edits of sources so apologies if this is the incorrect format. 1. Here is recent coverage from when Bitfinex expanded their fiat offering to include support for JPY, EUR, GBP, in addition to USD. (https://www.newsbtc.com/2018/03/29/bitfinex-adds-new-fiat-trading-pairs-deposit-options-platform/)

2. Here is a much older post of when Bitfinex reinstated USD deposits and withdrawals, only a week or so after it was "curtailed", as to quote this wikipedia page. (https://cryptovest.com/news/bitfinex-reinstates-usd-deposits-and-withdrawals-still-causes-doubts/)

3. Here is a link to the original post in which Bitfinex announced that fiat access had been curtailed. (https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/199). Here it is made apparent that "Bitfinex is currently **experiencing delays** in the processing of outbound USD wires to customers." It does in no way state that fiat access has been cut completely.

4. Here is an update which makes it clear that fiat transactions are being processed yet again: https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/203

5. Lastly (not an official source but an indicator nonetheless), here are images of the current Bitfinex USD deposit screen - https://imgur.com/a/YUIec58.

There is absolutely nothing which indicates, or even suggests, that Bitfinex or its users don't have access to USD. The only source which does suggest this is a blog post from April 2017 (over a year old.) which mentions temporary delays. Why should this still influence the profile, yet alone act as the leading sentence?

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The evidence given for the claim that Bitfinex has had its access to US funds "curtailed" may not be referenced in the lead statement, but it is referenced in a statement later in the main body of text. The rules allow, and in fact require, that statements in the lead not be encumbered by references when those references are able to be provided in the main body of text. If this claim is to be mentioned as being no longer accurate--which appears to be the point of your request--then evidence needs to be provided for that reversal. Until then, the sentence remains. .spintendo  15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2018

I would like to request the removal of the following line: "Research suggests that price manipulation of bitcoin on Bitfinex accounted for about half of the price increase for bitcoin in late 2017." based on the following source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/technology/bitcoin-price-manipulation.html

This request is made for a number of reasons:

1. The authors of the study found no link to Bitfinex, specifically claiming that there was no evidence to suggest Bitfinex knew about, or were involved, in any price manipulation." Source: "The authors of the new 66-page paper do not have emails or documents that prove that Bitfinex knew about or was responsible for price manipulation."

2. They specifically state that any their conclusions are based on inconclusive evidence surrounding activity of Tether on *other exchanges*, i.e. not Bitfinex. Source: "They found that half of the increase in Bitcoin’s price in 2017 could be traced to the hours immediately after Tether flowed to a handful of other exchanges, generally when the price was declining."

Both sources are taken from the same paper in which the original line is cited, which doesn't attempt to make any conclusions as to Bitfinex. This line belongs to the Tether wikipedia page, not as the opening line on the Bitfinex wikipedia page.

Themainexchange (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Themainexchange (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a convincing justification for this request above. The NYT article also says the following:

"Mr. Griffin looked at the flow of digital tokens going in and out of Bitfinex and identified several distinct patterns that suggest that someone or some people at the exchange successfully worked to push up prices when they sagged at other exchanges. To do that, the person or people used a secondary virtual currency, known as Tether, which was created and sold by the owners of Bitfinex, to buy up those other cryptocurrencies."

Insisting on particular forms of evidence like emails would seem to be original research.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Themainexchange (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your response. The following report clears up certain misconceptions around the use of Tether on Bitfinex: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/clearing-misconceptions-how-tether-should-and-does-work/. For one, Tether is only a withdraw option on Bitfinex, it's not a trading pair, making the theory that USDT can be used to prop up prices on Bitfinex invalid. This has been confirmed by independent researches and internal management, i.e. "Since Tether is only available as a withdrawal option and cannot be used in trading pairs on Bitfinex, it is, therefore, not possible to prop up the price of bitcoin using Tether tokens on Bitfinex" - Robert-Jan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themainexchange (talk • contribs) 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Signatures go at the end of statements.

This is already addressed by the NYT source. The very next sentence of the Bitcoin Magazine article you cite says: This conclusion, however, does not disprove the theory that Tether has been used to prop up the price of bitcoin elsewhere. That article makes it very, very clear that Bitfinex is completely intertwined with Tether. If Tether is used for price manipulation in the broad sense, than so is Bitfinex by necessity. Price manipulation is what the NYT source describes, and your Bitcoin Magazine Ph.D student doesn't refute this. This kind of arcane, obfuscatory minutia should be supported and explained by reliable sources, not through cherry-picking.

Get consensus before opening an edit request using this template. Grayfell (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Promotional article

I have today removed a lot of promotional content from this article, often without a single source. This article needs more patrol. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for administrators to review and edit the content charging Kraken with price manipulation

The paragraph calling out Kraken for price manipulation of Tether USD reads as promotional content as well:

"Reporters from Bloomberg, following reports that tether pricing was manipulated on the Kraken exchange, found evidence that these prices were also manipulated. Red flags included small orders moving the price as much as larger orders, and "oddly specific order sizes—many going out to five decimal points, with some repeating frequently." These oddly sized orders might have been used to signal wash trades in automated trading programs, according to New York University Professor Rosa Abrantes-Metz and former Federal Reserve bank examiner Mark Williams.[22]"

...found evidence that these prices were also manipulated...' This is factually incorrect and misleading--correlation does not imply/prove causation. Analysis of traditional economists and university professors referenced in the article pointed to the 'possibility' of price manipulation outside of the needed context of informing us, the readers, as if we didn't know, of what price manipulation means for the Tether USD market.

Furthermore, given that the low volumes traded on Kraken relative to other markets/exchanges and the relatively low volatility for Tether USD (an US dollar, asset backed cryptocurrency) across all markets, the implications of the Bloomberg article and now this reference on Bitfinex's Wikipedia tend towards a smack of a smear campaign, and incompetence. Even the definitions of 'price manipulation' removed from a traditional regulated market, and applied to what structures (and what transitions/evolves in the structures of) modern cryptocurrency markets, are tenuous and cannot be applied directly.

Just requesting admins review Bitfinex's Wikipedia article and the 'evidence' (argument without evidence) presented by the Bloomberg piece and adjust for accuracy. It might even make sense to trace the story accurately on the Tether and Kraken pages as well.

Please sign your comments. Thanks for your comment, I did move the content off to the tether article, as there was too much content on this article relating to tether. You are right, the whole discussion of Kraken, seems unrelated in any way to Bitfinex (although the comments might be related to tether. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but the request was to simply look into the facts and the validity of the source and its claims in relation to publishing here. Thanks. Centauriol (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Excessive tether content

I have added the tether content discussed by the IP address user in the above talk page section (as well as a large block of Kraken (bitcoin exchange) content) to Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)#content_moved in this diff [3]. There is no reason this much content is here that is attracting strange edits. Better it stays on the tether article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2018

17 September 2018 Bitfinex started new decentralized exchange Ethfinex Trustless Gozames (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This not a news ticker for their daily business activities. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Uncontested. Џ 12:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Bitfinex hack into Bitfinex. Not independently notable. Џ 19:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge seems logical to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Obvious and good idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I support this idea. R2d232h2 (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A long history ...

@Jtbobwaysf: I see that you've removed the sentence "It has a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship," in the lede. Your edit comment was "NPOV". I'm sure you agree that it does have "a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship," so what's the problem? It is not POV to write that e.g. a bankrupt company has gone bankrupt and has closed shop. That may be the most important fact about that hypothetical company. In the case of this real company it does have a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship. That would be the most important fact about *any* exchange, so putting this in the lede is simply NPOV and the normal way to write articles.

You need to address this issue or I just can't take any response seriously. Let's be specific.

A) In May 2015, 1500 bitcoins were stolen during a hack.

B)In June 2016, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ordered Bitfinex to pay a $75,000 fine for offering illegal off-exchanged financed commodity transactions. The order also found that Bitfinex violated the Commodity Exchange Act by not registering as a Futures Commission Merchant.

C)In August 2016, Bitfinex announced it had suffered a security breach. In it, $72 million in bitcoin was stolen from the company's customer's accounts. Immediately thereafter, bitcoin's trading price plunged by 20%. After learning of the breach, Bitfinex halted all bitcoin withdrawals and trading. In that hack, the second-biggest breach of a Bitcoin exchange platform, 119,756 units of bitcoin, which was about $72 million at the time, were stolen. The bitcoin was taken from users' segregated wallets and Bitfinex said it was tracking down the hack. Exchange customers, even those whose accounts had not been broken into, had their account balance reduced by 36% and received BFX tokens in proportion to their losses.

D)In April 2017, Bitfinex announced that it was experiencing delays in processing USD withdrawals after Wells Fargo cut off its wire transfers. Shortly after the Wells Fargo cutoff, Bitfinex stated all international wires had been cut off by its Taiwanese bank. Since then, Bitfinex has moved between a series of banks in other countries, without disclosing to customers where the money is kept.

E)Noble Bank International of San Juan, Puerto Rico reportedly handled some dollar banking for the exchange in 2017 or 2018. The banking relationship was reportedly terminated in September 2018 as Nobel Bank encountered financial difficulties.

F) In April 2019 New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a suit accusing Bitfinex of using the reserves of Tether, an affiliated company to cover up a loss of $850 million. Bitfinex had been unable to obtain a normal banking relationship, according to the lawsuit, so it deposited over $1 billion with a Panamanian payment processor known as Crypto Capital Corp. No contract was ever signed with Crypto Capital. James alleged that in 2018 Bitfinex knew or suspected that Crypto Capital had absconded with the money, but that their investors were never informed of the loss.

The above is the majority of paragraphs from the history section of the article. Do you disagree with any of these paragraphs? Don't they show "a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship?"

I've reverted your revert and may make another small change. Please do give a serious reply. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This response is WP:BLUDGEON. Just summarize it in a neutral way, your summary is clearly not neutral. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that response is Smallbones making his case. The sentence seems a reasonable summary of the extensive RSes to me - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I find this language very non-neutral and borderline original research. Who said "long history"? How long it should be to say that in Wikipedia voice? Who said "normal banking"? What does it mean? A neutral way to summarize would be to say that Bitfinex experienced several hacks and security breaches, and was accused of participating in a cover-up to hide the loss of about $850 million. Retimuko (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, a long history could be thousands of years on a Mongol history article. As editors, we should not be passing judgment and pushing POVs (both of which are happening here). David, I would think you would be on the same side with us on this, no matter what trash company/scheme is the subject of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The argument by Retimuko and Jtbobwaysf seems to be that, in the lede, we need to quote somebody saying "long history" and "normal banking relationship". No we don't - the lede is meant to summarize the body of the text and the text shows a long history of losing customers' money and failing to obtain a normal banking relationship. I'll note that nobody has challenged that summary of A) - F). Which point would they challenge? If anybody wants to challenge any of the points A) - F) I can take their comments seriously. But right now you seem to be saying that the words "long history" and "normal banking relationship" aren't clear, i.e. that we can't use simple, plain, direct English to summarize the situation. The problem with using the more complicated language is that readers may look at "Bitfinex experienced several hacks and security breaches, and was accused of participating in a cover-up to hide the loss of about $850 million" and not understand that Bitfinex has a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship. In short, the facts are all there and unchallenged. And the policy or style objections don't reflect Wikipedia's policies and style. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

'Bitfinex has suffered multiple hacks and has trouble maintaining banking relationships' if you need a summary. There is no need for the adjectives "normal" and "long" as they are subjective opinions of editors... In fact many crypto exchanges have had problems with both banking relationships and hacks, so bitfinex is not really exceptional in this way. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What you're missing here is that "It has a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship," makes it seem like customers of the platform lost money.

> A) In May 2015, 1500 bitcoins were stolen during a hack.

No customers lost money from this hack. [4]

"its scale is small and will be fully absorbed by the company"

> B) ... Bitfinex paid a fine to CFTC

No customers paid any part of this fine.

> C) ... Exchange customers, even those whose accounts had not been broken into, had their account balance reduced by 36% and received BFX tokens in proportion to their losses.

The dollar value of all accounts as of the time of the hack was repaid in full 8 months later, as is later stated in the "2016 Hack" section of the article. [5]

> F) ... James alleged that in 2018 Bitfinex knew or suspected that Crypto Capital had absconded with the money, but that their investors were never informed of the loss.

Not stated in the "Launch of Tether" section is that the Crypto Capital Corp money was seized by the governments of the US, Portugal, and Poland. [6]

"Since the case entered the public sphere, Bitfinex has tried to recover the funds held by Crypto Capital held by law enforcement officials in Portugal, Poland and the U.S."

No customers suffered a loss here; 1 USDT was always redeemed for $1. Bitfinex was able to raise money from investors with the LEO token to cover the asset seizure.

Mt Gox account holders lost money. FTX account holders lost money. Bitfinex account holders only suffered a loss if they sold their BFX tokens from the 2016 hack for less than $1.

Maybe it's better to say "It has a history of being the victim of security breaches, paying fines to regulators, and struggling to secure normal banking relationships, as is the case with many other crypto exchanges." 2603:800C:D00:23A4:9A1C:CE3:1EAA:272C (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Bitfinex has suffered multiple hacks and has trouble maintaining banking relationships" vs. "It has a long history of losing its customers' money and failing to secure a normal banking relationship." I notice that nobody has said that the 2nd sentence is factually incorrect. It's just a straightforward statement of the facts. Quibbling with the definitions of "long" and "normal" is just silly. In the bitcoin universe that's lasted 10 years, 5 years is as long as just about anything has lasted. "Normal banking relationship" means, among other things, not having the banks close your accounts every 6 months or so. Perfectly normal use of the English language.

Now "Bitfinex has suffered multiple hacks ..." Really, when all we know is that the customers' money is lost? How did Bitfinex "suffer" - they just "socialized the loss" by taking more money from their customers. Great example of BS that, please don't follow Bitfinex's example. "Hack"? How do you know? Inside jobs are very common in the cryptocurrency world, but you seem to want to rule that out - some outside hacker must have done it. Evidence please. "and has trouble maintaining banking relationships" aren't you assuming that they are actually trying to maintain a banking relationship, rather than just lying to the banks from the start and grabbing as much money as possible before they get thrown out. All we really know is that they have not had a normal banking relationship, so please don't assert that they are actually trying to maintain one. Fancy words usually involve some sort of assumptions. There's no indication that these assumptions are justified here. Let's just state the plain facts - they keep on losing their customers' money and they've never had a normal banking relationship. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

These are your conclusions not stated by any reliable sources, which is called original research. This is not a straightforward statement of facts at all. The words "long" and "normal" especially look as editorializing. You seem to want to spin the hacks as inside jobs? Evidence please. We are summarizing reliable sources here.

> "Let's just state the plain facts - they keep on losing their customers' money and they've never had a normal banking relationship" - these are not plain facts, but your conclusions not stated by the sources. This is outrageous POV pushing. Retimuko (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

So which of the paragraphs A) - F) do you disagree with? That's where the sources are. I'm not saying the thefts from Bitfinex are inside jobs - though this type of crime is common among cryptoexchanges - I'm saying that "Bitfinex has suffered multiple hacks ..." seems to deny the possibility of an inside job whereas "It has a long history of losing its customers' money" is undeniably true - you certainly haven't challenged it. So do get serious about your explanations - saying that we can't use the words "long" or "normal" is just silly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

In particular, I disagree with F, where you came up with this "had been unable to obtain a normal banking relationship", which is not in the cited source. The source says: "they have struggled to maintain banking relationships" as a quote attributed to Eric Turner. I am not literally saying we cannot use the words "long" and "normal" - this is a straw man argument on your part. I disagree with editorializing, original research and non-neutral editing on your part. You seem to want to imply some meaning that is not stated by reliable sources. The facts are that there were several major incidents (hacks or breaches or whatever they are called by the sources), but you want to draw an unjustified conclusion that this constitutes a "long history". This is clearly a non-neutral opinion. Denying that "normal banking relationship" reads like an editorial opinion as well is quite surprising to hear from an editor with extensive experience. Retimuko (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted this POV again here [7]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RS cite specifically about this: "Bitfinex's KYC and AML-light attitude towards the sourcing of fiat and crypto funds has been posing the group a major banking challenge. With most reputable banks not keen to risk relations with the outfit," - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And another: During this same period, Bitfinex found that obtaining banking services was more and more difficult. One bank after another severed its relationship with Bitfinex and Tether. Banks haven't publicly explained their reluctance to work with Bitfinex, but it's widely believed that banks are worried about possible regulatory headaches. That's two RSes that specifically justify this as an important fact about Bitfinex in particular, not crypto exchanges in general. Claiming this is just "POV" is nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

David, I support the content that shows that Bitfinex has trouble with banking, hacks, etc. I just don't support non-neutral terminology such as "normal," attempts to oversimplify making bitfinex look evil, etc. All the crypto exchanges have issues with banking, not only bitfinex. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

These are the specific sources that Bitfinex are special in this regard. Which they are - you don't see Coinbase or Kraken pulling this sort of nonsense - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Bitfinex seems to be unique, but we would need sources that do the comparison. I read today [8] that Bitfinex legal counsel admitted that they have also used Tether funds to purchase Bitcoin, thus it is hardly a stablecoin at all, probably more like a timebomb. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

> How do you know? Inside jobs are very common in the cryptocurrency world

We now know because the DoJ caught those responsible for the hack. [9] 2603:800C:D00:23A4:9A1C:CE3:1EAA:272C (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

No, Bitfinex did not pump 120 Billion dollars of market cap into Bitcoin.

This study was done by a student project at a university, and is by no means official. It shouldn't be included in the article

https://cointelegraph.com/news/3-reasons-why-one-trader-didnt-manipulate-bitcoin-price-to-20k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4E00:7E60:7C8A:F169:3AE3:7BBB (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No, Bitfinex did not pump 120 Billion dollars of market cap into Bitcoin.

This study was done by a student project at a university, and is by no means official. It shouldn't be included in the article

https://cointelegraph.com/news/3-reasons-why-one-trader-didnt-manipulate-bitcoin-price-to-20k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4E00:7E60:7C8A:F169:3AE3:7BBB (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

We are not using industry sources. Please see if you can find a mainstream source (WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, etc). Then we can include the content. cointelegraph.com is not considered a WP:RS for cryptocurrency. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14.3.2020

(idk how to use this template)

A word is missing in this sentence: "The reported figures for 2017 were $333.5 million in gross profits, $6.8 million on expenses, $326 in net profit and $246 million in dividends.". It should be "$326 million" since all other figures are also in millions and the cited source [11] uses millions. Douira100 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Bitfinex is a cryptocurrency exchange and trading platform owned and operated by iFinex Inc., which is registered in the British Virgin Islands.

The company was founded in 2012 as a P2P margin lending platform for Bitcoin but has since added other services to its portfolio of companies owned by iFinex, Inc. It has been reported that the exchange now offers the most liquidity spot exchange based on order book depth. (Reference https://www.theblockcrypto.com/daily/61354/bitfinex-is-the-most-liquid-spot-exchange-based-on-order-book-depth) Rickcrypto (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Rick, that is not a WP:RS under sourcing guidelines. We are not using cryptozines, blogs, etc Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS Rickcrypto (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC) I would like to suggest a switch the first paragraph in the introduction to the company whilst maintaining all copy as it is :

"Bitfinex is a cryptocurrency exchange owned and operated by iFinex Inc., which is headquartered in Hong Kong and registered in the British Virgin Islands.[1][2] Their customers' money has been stolen or lost in several incidents, and they have been unable to secure normal banking relationships.[3][4][5] "

Replace with the first paragraph in the first introduction with the History section:

"Bitfinex was founded in December 2012 as a peer-to-peer Bitcoin exchange, offering digital asset trading services to users around the world. Bitfinex initially started as a P2P margin lending platform for Bitcoin and later added support for more cryptocurrencies."

We can then use the original paragraph as the first in the history.

As this page is merged from the 'Bitfinex Hack' page I believe as an introduction to the company this serves the reader better as opposed to the hack which we can still keep in on its history. Rickcrypto (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor Rickcrypto:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor Paine Ellsworth: Thank you, I have changed the edit request to an editconsensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrypto (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bitfinex was founded in December 2012 as a peer-to-peer Bitcoin exchange, offering digital asset trading services to users around the world. Bitfinex initially started as a P2P margin lending platform for Bitcoin and later added support for more cryptocurrencies.

Are there WP:RS to support this P2P concept? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rickcrypto: We need reliable sources showing that this P2P margin lending platform existed. Without that, we can't add it to the article, as all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if it never existed it can still be included, we just need some RS about it regardless. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reliable source (in the form of a CFTC order for Bitfinex to pay a fine) of P2P margin lending from 2013 [1]

> Another of Bitfinex's services is its "Margin Trading" feature. Through this feature, Bitfinex permits traders to borrow dollars and bitcoins from other users on the platform in order to open leveraged positions on Bitfinex's exchange. Bitfinex refers to the participants on the platform who act as lenders as "Margin Funding Providers." In order to initiate a loan, Margin Funding Providers enter offers in Bitfinex' s online tool to lend funds with their own chosen terms (daily rate of return, duration, and amount), or they can lend at the "Flash Return Rate" set by the market. When an offer to borrow is accepted by a trader ("Financing Recipient"), the Financing Recipient can use the borrowed funds to buy or sell bitcoins on Bitfinex' s exchange. In addition to repaying the borrowed funds, Financing Recipient are responsible for paying fees and interest to the Margin Funding Providers.

[1] https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7380-16 links to https://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@lrenforcementactions/documents/legalpleading/enfbfxnaorder060216.pdf 2603:800C:D00:23A4:E52F:6B5C:A816:EAA3 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS Rickcrypto (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2020 (BST) Remove entire intro : and place in history section : Bitfinex is a cryptocurrency exchange owned and operated by iFinex Inc., which is headquartered in Hong Kong and registered in the British Virgin Islands.[1][2] Their customers' money has been stolen or lost in several incidents, and they have been unable to secure normal banking relationships.[3][4][5]

In 2015 the exchange's customers were hacked, losing about $400,000, and in 2016 about $73 million more was stolen from its customers' accounts. The exchange's access to U.S. dollar payments and withdrawals was then curtailed. In October 2018, Bitfinex again had serious difficulties with its banking relationships. Its management stated "Bitfinex is not insolvent on October 7."[6]

In April 2019 New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a suit accusing Bitfinex of using the reserves of Tether, an affiliated company to cover up a loss of $850 million to a Panamanian payment processor known as Crypto Capital Corp.[7] Reggie Fowler, who is alleged to have connections with Crypto Capital, was indicted on April 30, 2019, for running an unlicensed money transmitting business for cryptocurrency traders.[8]

Research suggests that price manipulation of bitcoin on Bitfinex accounted for about half of the price increase for bitcoin in late 2017.[9]

According to a statement by Bitfinex prior to the offering of $1 billion in tokens, Bitfinex had a net profit of $404 million in 2018. These results were not audited, nor prepared under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.[10][11]

Replace with:

Bitfinex was founded in December 2012 as a peer-to-peer Bitcoin exchange, offering digital asset trading services to users around the world. Bitfinex initially started as a P2P margin lending platform for Bitcoin and later added support for more cryptocurrencies.

This will allow the wiki to remain factual and more comprehensive as an introduction to fall inline with other similar pages.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

I'd like to update the logo to the new one at

File:Bitfinex Logo.png

This is the logo for Bitfinex

Axxe888 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The color in the leaf is different from the current logo on this page, and it is different from the logo in use at https://www.bitfinex.com/. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2021 -- update to questions over Tether and Bitfinex's relationship

DELETE:

AND REPLACE WITH:

In February 2021, Bitfinix agreed to pay $18.5 million in a settlement with the New York Attorney General's office regarding allegations over Bitfinex parent iFinex making false statements about the backing of Tether and the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars between the two companies to cover up massive losses by Bitfinex in 2017 and 2018. As part of the agreement, Bitfinix will end all trading activity with New Yorkers. Branpedia (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

COMMENT ON THIS: Did you proofread the above at all before adding? The term Bitfinix, spelled incorrectly, is used twice there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.206.43.100 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

hello! i am requesting that "Their customers' money has been stolen or lost in several incidents, and they have been unable to secure normal banking relationships." be moved further down to a more relevant descriptive section. it is not neutral or fair to display this in line 1, rather than unbiased administrative details about the company itself. 112.119.25.231 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a summation of the article, and the article describes the several incidents, so it makes sense it is summarized in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you establish consensus? There are several other remarks in the Talk page that request removal of that line and call it biased. 2603:800C:D00:23A4:F403:E29E:8AD0:A0B9 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Small typo "stabelcoin"

• The current text says "stabelcoin". This is a typo and should be changed to "stablecoin":
• The page it links to is called Stablecoin, and this appears to be the industry standard term. (8M search results for "stablecoin", 14,000 for "stabelcoin").:

KenyonP (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)