i want to ask, bitfinex still trusted , deposit and withdraw normal and fast or not
thank you
Topic: [OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading - page 50. (Read 723861 times)
February 21, 2017, 08:25:22 PM
February 19, 2017, 12:45:30 PM
I believe that they allow 3.3x initial leverage and require 15% maintenance margin in order to maintain positions. By my calculations, this means that there would need to be a very swift change in price in excess of 10% for the possibility of individual accounts to have negative equity.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
I don't quite understand what you mean to say
But maybe it's just me, after all. Regarding the amount of leverage, 3.3:1 leverage means that the trader can potentially have 3.3 times the amount that he actually has. In this manner, if he has, say, only 100 dollars he could buy bitcoins for the total of 330 dollars (including his own money). If the price goes higher, that would give him 3.3 times more profit, but if the price goes down dramatically he could potentially incur more losses than he has funds in his account. With 3.3:1 leverage that would happen if the price went down 33%, but since the exchange has the right to forcefully sell his bitcoins (to prevent them from losses), they will do that even before the price comes down to the point where the account will get wiped away completely
If someone has $1,000 in USD, they can buy 3.3BTC @$1,000 each (ignoring trading fees, and interest payments). This person will owe $3,300 to lenders. If the price of BTC declines to $850, then the 3.3BTC that he purchased is now worth $2,805, he will still have his initial $1,000 and will have total assets of $3,805; he will still owe $3,300 to lenders, so his net equity is $505, or 15.3% of what he owes to lenders. He would get a margin call at roughly this time
It seems that I pinpointed where you make a mistake
If a trader has 1,000 dollars and the leverage ratio is 3.3:1, it means that he would owe only 2,300 dollars (not 3,300 as you say). Basically, the leverage of 1:1 just means that there is no leverage altogether and the trader is using his own funds (i.e he doesn't borrow). So he will get a margin call when the price goes down to roughly 700 dollars (which is equal to 30% as I said). In that case, his remaining funds will be just enough to cover his debt (350 dollars on every 1,150 dollars borrowed)
February 19, 2017, 12:00:58 PM
They don't use BitGo any more, and are back to their original hot/cold wallet setup.
The hack was only on BitFinex. The hacker used the keys from BitFinex to change the limit on BitGo. Amazingly, up to 1M BTC a day, over the BitGO API directly, which was not a documented feature. Without raising questions or warnings from BitGo. Then the hacker went on to send many many transactions, signed with BitFinex' compromised key, to BitGo, which they co-signed without question.
That's one of he worst setups I ever heard, on BitGos side. But the original problem was the compromise of BitFinex' servers
The hack was only on BitFinex. The hacker used the keys from BitFinex to change the limit on BitGo. Amazingly, up to 1M BTC a day, over the BitGO API directly, which was not a documented feature. Without raising questions or warnings from BitGo. Then the hacker went on to send many many transactions, signed with BitFinex' compromised key, to BitGo, which they co-signed without question.
That's one of he worst setups I ever heard, on BitGos side. But the original problem was the compromise of BitFinex' servers
This raises a lot more questions really
If BitGo just blindly signed the Bitfinex transactions without asking questions, what was the purpose of them being there in the first place? I don't know how that system works or should work but common sense tells me that BitGo is useless in this setup, i.e. if we remove it completely this won't change anything at all. I assume their primary aim is to provide additional channel for confirmations (like SMS codes in 2FA). Or does it mean that they are involved in the theft too?
BitGo offered an API that it's customers could use to send transactions to BitGo for BitGo's signature. The high volume nature of Bitfienx's transactions sent to BitGo meant that the API had to always be logged in, and for obvious reasons, the Bitfinex server that connected to the BitGo API needed to always be online.
It is my understanding that not long before the hack, that BitGo changed their API so that it was possible to change security settings, including the ability to increase the maximum number of coins that BitGo will allow to be withdrawn from Bitfinex's wallets/addresses via transactions that BitGo signed.
February 19, 2017, 11:52:10 AM
I believe that they allow 3.3x initial leverage and require 15% maintenance margin in order to maintain positions. By my calculations, this means that there would need to be a very swift change in price in excess of 10% for the possibility of individual accounts to have negative equity.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
I don't quite understand what you mean to say
But maybe it's just me, after all. Regarding the amount of leverage, 3.3:1 leverage means that the trader can potentially have 3.3 times the amount that he actually has. In this manner, if he has, say, only 100 dollars he could buy bitcoins for the total of 330 dollars (including his own money). If the price goes higher, that would give him 3.3 times more profit, but if the price goes down dramatically he could potentially incur more losses than he has funds in his account. With 3.3:1 leverage that would happen if the price went down 33%, but since the exchange has the right to forcefully sell his bitcoins (to prevent them from losses), they will do that even before the price comes down to the point where the account will get wiped away completely
If the price were to fall to $697 (18% decline from $850), then the value of that 3.3BTC would be $2,300.1, plus his initial $1,000 would mean that his total assets are $3,300.1 and the amount lent to lenders would be $3,300, however after factoring in trading fees and interest, his assets would be less than the amount owed.
So it seems that the more precise statement is that the price will need to fall by roughly 18% from a point very quickly for there to be a risk that individual accounts having negative equity.
I would point out that it is theoretically possible for someone to buy 3.3BTC in the above scenario, and for the price of BTC to remain the same for a long enough period of time, and the interest payments cause a margin call.
February 19, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
They don't use BitGo any more, and are back to their original hot/cold wallet setup.
The hack was only on BitFinex. The hacker used the keys from BitFinex to change the limit on BitGo. Amazingly, up to 1M BTC a day, over the BitGO API directly, which was not a documented feature. Without raising questions or warnings from BitGo. Then the hacker went on to send many many transactions, signed with BitFinex' compromised key, to BitGo, which they co-signed without question.
That's one of he worst setups I ever heard, on BitGos side. But the original problem was the compromise of BitFinex' servers
The hack was only on BitFinex. The hacker used the keys from BitFinex to change the limit on BitGo. Amazingly, up to 1M BTC a day, over the BitGO API directly, which was not a documented feature. Without raising questions or warnings from BitGo. Then the hacker went on to send many many transactions, signed with BitFinex' compromised key, to BitGo, which they co-signed without question.
That's one of he worst setups I ever heard, on BitGos side. But the original problem was the compromise of BitFinex' servers
This raises a lot more questions really
If BitGo just blindly signed the Bitfinex transactions without asking questions, what was the purpose of them being there in the first place? I don't know how that system works or should work but common sense tells me that BitGo is useless in this setup, i.e. if we remove it completely this won't change anything at all. I assume their primary aim is to provide additional channel for confirmations (like SMS codes in 2FA). Or does it mean that they are involved in the theft too?
February 19, 2017, 11:11:45 AM
They don't use BitGo any more, and are back to their original hot/cold wallet setup.
The hack was only on BitFinex. The hacker used the keys from BitFinex to change the limit on BitGo. Amazingly, up to 1M BTC a day, over the BitGO API directly, which was not a documented feature. Without raising questions or warnings from BitGo. Then the hacker went on to send many many transactions, signed with BitFinex' compromised key, to BitGo, which they co-signed without question.
That's one of he worst setups I ever heard, on BitGos side. But the original problem was the compromise of BitFinex' servers.
Ente
The hack was only on BitFinex. The hacker used the keys from BitFinex to change the limit on BitGo. Amazingly, up to 1M BTC a day, over the BitGO API directly, which was not a documented feature. Without raising questions or warnings from BitGo. Then the hacker went on to send many many transactions, signed with BitFinex' compromised key, to BitGo, which they co-signed without question.
That's one of he worst setups I ever heard, on BitGos side. But the original problem was the compromise of BitFinex' servers.
Ente
February 19, 2017, 11:02:18 AM
Are they using a cold wallet now or still rely on BitGo? By the way, does anybody know how a hacker hacked both Bitfinex and BitGo and passed BitGo's 2 factor authentication?
February 19, 2017, 06:49:56 AM
As the name implies, bfxdata charts date from Bitfinex. 
February 19, 2017, 06:46:07 AM
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
Where does bfxdata get the information from? Does it get it from all exchanges or bitfinex only?
February 19, 2017, 03:55:00 AM
I believe that they allow 3.3x initial leverage and require 15% maintenance margin in order to maintain positions. By my calculations, this means that there would need to be a very swift change in price in excess of 10% for the possibility of individual accounts to have negative equity.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
I don't quite understand what you mean to say
But maybe it's just me, after all. Regarding the amount of leverage, 3.3:1 leverage means that the trader can potentially have 3.3 times the amount that he actually has. In this manner, if he has, say, only 100 dollars he could buy bitcoins for the total of 330 dollars (including his own money). If the price goes higher, that would give him 3.3 times more profit, but if the price goes down dramatically he could potentially incur more losses than he has funds in his account. With 3.3:1 leverage that would happen if the price went down 33%, but since the exchange has the right to forcefully sell his bitcoins (to prevent them from losses), they will do that even before the price comes down to the point where the account will get wiped away completely
February 19, 2017, 03:20:07 AM
I believe that they allow 3.3x initial leverage and require 15% maintenance margin in order to maintain positions. By my calculations, this means that there would need to be a very swift change in price in excess of 10% for the possibility of individual accounts to have negative equity.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
Users do not have to use the maximum amount of leverage (although lenders do not have any control over this).
I would point out that, according to https://www.bfxdata.com/positions/btcusd as of Jan 6 at 8:59, the price of BTC was 1,151.16, and there were 37,349BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions, and as of Jan 6 at 17:59, the price of BTC was 962.26 (down ~16.4%), and there were 26,422BTC in outstanding BTCUSD long positions (down ~10,900BTC, or ~29.25%). This did of course follow a very sharp upward movement in the BTCUSD price, and is only one example of how the market on Bitfinex specifically handled one specific quick selloff.
February 19, 2017, 02:15:09 AM
I'm wondering what risks are associated with becoming a funding provider in USD to margin traders. Does anybody have any experience? Can I deposit BTC, exchange them to USD and provide funding to margin traders and get interest for that? Is it worth it and is it safe?
I guess you risk your funds being confiscated
Just like it happened after the previous hack when funds of all users had been affected even if they had no bitcoins in their wallets. As i got it, Bitfinex socialized losses between all their clients, even those who were not hacked. So if something's going to happen again, your money won't be safe. Besides, I don't think that the interest you might earn is worth the effort (as well as risk). I read a story here of some guy who deposited bitcoins after the hack, and the exchange basically refused to return them to him
Now that bitfinex has moved back to a hot/cold wallet system, the risk of loss due to theft is much lower. The primary risk is that so many many margin loans are given out and that the btc price declines so much that margin borrowers are unable to repay their loans collectively. In the past when margin borrowers have been unable to repay their loans bitfinex has stepped in and covered the difference. Depending on how much Btc declines bitfinex may not be able and/or willing to cover these losses in the future
I don't know how they implement the margin trading, so I can't assert what you say might not actually happen. But if they do it right, the chances of that should be low. In other words, it would require a really dramatic price change. I guess, to avoid such issues that should just keep the balance between short positions and long ones opened on borrowed funds (i.e. on margin)
So it still comes down to how good an exchange is at handling their risks
February 19, 2017, 01:15:33 AM
I'm wondering what risks are associated with becoming a funding provider in USD to margin traders. Does anybody have any experience? Can I deposit BTC, exchange them to USD and provide funding to margin traders and get interest for that? Is it worth it and is it safe?
I guess you risk your funds being confiscated
Just like it happened after the previous hack when funds of all users had been affected even if they had no bitcoins in their wallets. As i got it, Bitfinex socialized losses between all their clients, even those who were not hacked. So if something's going to happen again, your money won't be safe. Besides, I don't think that the interest you might earn is worth the effort (as well as risk). I read a story here of some guy who deposited bitcoins after the hack, and the exchange basically refused to return them to him
Now that bitfinex has moved back to a hot/cold wallet system, the risk of loss due to theft is much lower. The primary risk is that so many many margin loans are given out and that the btc price declines so much that margin borrowers are unable to repay their loans collectively. In the past when margin borrowers have been unable to repay their loans bitfinex has stepped in and covered the difference. Depending on how much Btc declines bitfinex may not be able and/or willing to cover these losses in the future.
I would encourage you to study the risk of this and other negative events happening before lending on their platform.
February 19, 2017, 12:48:37 AM
I'm wondering what risks are associated with becoming a funding provider in USD to margin traders. Does anybody have any experience? Can I deposit BTC, exchange them to USD and provide funding to margin traders and get interest for that? Is it worth it and is it safe?
I guess you risk your funds being confiscated
Just like it happened after the previous hack when funds of all users had been affected even if they had no bitcoins in their wallets. As i got it, Bitfinex socialized losses between all their clients, even those who were not hacked. So if something's going to happen again, your money won't be safe. Besides, I don't think that the interest you might earn is worth the effort (as well as risk). I read a story here of some guy who deposited bitcoins after the hack, and the exchange basically refused to return them to him
February 18, 2017, 02:08:43 PM
I'm wondering what risks are associated with becoming a funding provider in USD to margin traders. Does anybody have any experience? Can I deposit BTC, exchange them to USD and provide funding to margin traders and get interest for that? Is it worth it and is it safe?
January 13, 2017, 11:13:33 AM
Better get used to it, noone ever gets caught. Even when taking millions from an eschange, and even when everyone can closely watch the coins move. I too am puzzled about this phenomenon.
Heck, with MtGox, noone even knows if those vanished coins even existed to begin with.
Ente
With the Bitfinex hack, it has been alleged that the stolen BTC has been moved to very specific addresses via specific transactions, the inputs of which could all be reasonably traced back to bitfinex. Heck, with MtGox, noone even knows if those vanished coins even existed to begin with.
Ente
Regarding the MtGox hack, the coins were likely stolen over time, both via people exploiting what Gox claimed to have happened, via gox erroneously processing a withdrawal multiple times, and with Mark misappropriating customer funds.
Any more details, I'm fascinated by this case, how easy it was to do.
yes, tens of millions diapered in their pockets
January 11, 2017, 05:27:21 PM
Better get used to it, noone ever gets caught. Even when taking millions from an eschange, and even when everyone can closely watch the coins move. I too am puzzled about this phenomenon.
Heck, with MtGox, noone even knows if those vanished coins even existed to begin with.
Ente
With the Bitfinex hack, it has been alleged that the stolen BTC has been moved to very specific addresses via specific transactions, the inputs of which could all be reasonably traced back to bitfinex. Heck, with MtGox, noone even knows if those vanished coins even existed to begin with.
Ente
Regarding the MtGox hack, the coins were likely stolen over time, both via people exploiting what Gox claimed to have happened, via gox erroneously processing a withdrawal multiple times, and with Mark misappropriating customer funds.
Any more details, I'm fascinated by this case, how easy it was to do.
January 09, 2017, 07:44:11 PM
And I really hope the funding provider will get this one full day's interest. Let's see... The FRR manipulations (up and down) were ignored for years.
Let's see... The FRR manipulations (up and down) were ignored for years. January 09, 2017, 07:25:09 PM
Quote
Unused Financing Fee
January 09, 2017
A recent analysis of user behavior has revealed several attempts to artificially inflate funding rates for certain currencies through a particular pattern of taking and returning funding. The pattern and scale of these user actions indicate systematically manipulative behavior. Such behavior is strictly prohibited.
To prevent exploitative behavior and to protect traders and lenders, Bitfinex is adjusting how fees are handled in these situations.
Effective immediately, the platform will charge one full day’s interest on any funding that is borrowed and subsequently returned without being used in a financed position. This change will not impact most traders or funding providers. It will act to dissuade manipulative behavior and ensure fair platform use for all.
Platform monitoring tools will continue to detect disruptive, distortionary, or manipulative borrowing practices in order to maintain the best possible environment for traders and funding providers. Please note that levying this new fee does not endorse or condone this behavior. It is still impermissible, and we reserve the right to take further punitive measures as we deem necessary to ensure the integrity of the financing platform. Specifically, users subject to this fee may be flagged for further investigation and may be subject to further sanction, at our discretion.
If you have any questions about how this may affect your trading or financing activities, please reach out to [email protected] and we will happily help you.
January 09, 2017
A recent analysis of user behavior has revealed several attempts to artificially inflate funding rates for certain currencies through a particular pattern of taking and returning funding. The pattern and scale of these user actions indicate systematically manipulative behavior. Such behavior is strictly prohibited.
To prevent exploitative behavior and to protect traders and lenders, Bitfinex is adjusting how fees are handled in these situations.
Effective immediately, the platform will charge one full day’s interest on any funding that is borrowed and subsequently returned without being used in a financed position. This change will not impact most traders or funding providers. It will act to dissuade manipulative behavior and ensure fair platform use for all.
Platform monitoring tools will continue to detect disruptive, distortionary, or manipulative borrowing practices in order to maintain the best possible environment for traders and funding providers. Please note that levying this new fee does not endorse or condone this behavior. It is still impermissible, and we reserve the right to take further punitive measures as we deem necessary to ensure the integrity of the financing platform. Specifically, users subject to this fee may be flagged for further investigation and may be subject to further sanction, at our discretion.
If you have any questions about how this may affect your trading or financing activities, please reach out to [email protected] and we will happily help you.
Interesting, I really hope that they mean "at least one full day's interest or more, if borrowed for a longer period of time".
November 13, 2016, 06:42:47 PM
Better get used to it, noone ever gets caught. Even when taking millions from an eschange, and even when everyone can closely watch the coins move. I too am puzzled about this phenomenon.
Heck, with MtGox, noone even knows if those vanished coins even existed to begin with.
Ente
With the Bitfinex hack, it has been alleged that the stolen BTC has been moved to very specific addresses via specific transactions, the inputs of which could all be reasonably traced back to bitfinex. Heck, with MtGox, noone even knows if those vanished coins even existed to begin with.
Ente
Regarding the MtGox hack, the coins were likely stolen over time, both via people exploiting what Gox claimed to have happened, via gox erroneously processing a withdrawal multiple times, and with Mark misappropriating customer funds.
Jump to: