[OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading

[wilfried]

plattform is in crap mode right now as it seems - bitcoinwisdom not showing trades since 21:05 for btc/usd, api showing another btc/usd price than bitcoinwisdom and offer swap is broken

[DoubleSwapper]

there is something wrong with bitfinex right now

There has been no noted trading activity for the last 1:15 hours on btcwisdom yet the price on the BFX ticker is fluctuating between 622.2 and 624. Looks ugly. There is also something strange with the swaps. A significant amount of money was lend out from 0.1 to 0.275 %.

        2    0.12%      101108.38    2
   30    0.275%    35698.44    1
   30    0.2799%    854.79    1
   3 - 15    0.28%    9910.86    2
   3    0.2894%    3094.47    1
   30    0.2898%    10.11    1
   30    0.2944%    5000.0    1

[gemy]

there is something wrong with bitfinex right now

There has been no noted trading activity for the last 1:15 hours on btcwisdom yet the price on the BFX ticker is fluctuating between 622.2 and 624. Looks ugly. There is also something strange with the swaps. A significant amount of money was lend out from 0.1 to 0.275 %.

        2    0.12%      101108.38    2
   30    0.275%    35698.44    1
   30    0.2799%    854.79    1
   3 - 15    0.28%    9910.86    2
   3    0.2894%    3094.47    1
   30    0.2898%    10.11    1
   30    0.2944%    5000.0    1

Same situation at my end. No new orders or offers can be placed. Seems the system was down!

[gog1]

I really think for the amount of money they are making, they should have some kind of 24x7 telephone support (or skye or something) - not necessarily being entrusted with money and a lot of power or manipulating user data, but at least serve to page the admins / devs in cases like this.

Something is really odd right now.

[DoubleSwapper]

I really think for the amount of money they are making, they should have some kind of 24x7 telephone support (or skye or something) - not necessarily being entrusted with money and a lot of power or manipulating user data, but at least serve to page the admins / devs in cases like this.

Something is really odd right now.

Maybe they saw that we didn't like the changes, called it quits and ran off with the money.

[wilfried]

while we´re waiting for the plattform to reboot; and because there´s news that some guys try to sue the shit out of karpeles...
(not that i would be worried for karpeles because of that, compared to the methods of some silkroad-guys could apply..)


in europe we got so called "consumer protection legislation".
part of that is that a company cannot change its terms in relation to a consumer without notifying him 2 weeks at least before the change and giving him the opportunity to cancel the contract.

any company not doing so cannot put in effect the changed terms for the consumers.
so if, lets say, a bitcoin-platform installs withdrawal fees, it has to give the customers two weeks time to think about if they wanna cancel the contract or accept the change.

during that time consumers can withdraw theyr money without the new fees beeing applied.
if the company doesnt give the time to think it over, consumers are entitled to get the fee back.

such law suits are easy-going for lawiers. it´s so easy going, that even some countries´ governments installed so called customer-protection-clubs, which do nothing else but sue the shit out of companies not complying to the consumer  protection acts.

thats why consumers shouldn contract with offshore-companies, cause the consumer-protection-acts dont apply to them..

but wait, the european union, namely the european commission found a way to bypass that (they copied the us government):
they tell the off-shore company:
hey, if you dont comply with our rules, we dont let you make no more business in europe.

thats how they could fine us companies, such as microsoft, cause if they wouldnt pay the fine issued by the commission, bye bye bussiness in europe .

ah, while thinking about it, there is another jurisdiction to tell about:

basically it says: no matter where in the world you have your bussiness, it´s the laws of the country, from where you conduct your bussiness, that counts.

so, for example, if you are a french guy, living in france, and you are conducting a bussines in, lets say, uganda, but you are still living in france, doing alle the book-keeping and mail and decision making from france, hey guess what, french laws could apply; and there we are back againg: consumer protection acts.. 

so maybe it would be a good idea to comply with good-practices established in broad parts of the world, to avoid that people to try to have laws applied, what would be leading to our wonderfully unregulated bitcoin world beeing regulated until death..there the circle closes, law suits against gox all over

[DoubleSwapper]

BFX and bitcoinwisdom price ticker in sync again. Swaps still bugged out.

Scratch that. Swaps working too.

[Bonez0r]

Regarding this new "maker/taker" model, aren't those who provide the liquidity (i.e. those whose orders end up on the books) supposed to get a portion of the fee paid by those who take from the book?  This is the first time I've seen a "maker/taker" model described as both parties pay a fee with one just paying a lower fee.  This would seem to benefit Bitfinex a lot more than it would benefit traders, and I think it's going to end up creating a price divergence on this platform from other exchanges.  

A true maker/taker model (I think, and I'm no expert) should look like this:

Market makers receive 1/2 the fee paid by maker takers.
Market takers pay .3% fee (so Bitfinex receives .15%, and the market maker receives .15%).

This is how you "incentivize" being a market maker.  

this!

Thought about something similar but your idea seems to be an even better approach.
That fee structure would be a really incentive for being a market maker.

What´s your opinion Rapha/Giancarlo ?

I'm not a trader, so i might be wrong, but doesn't the new fee structure already incentivize being a market maker? A market maker only pays half the fee (or less, if you trade a lot) compared to a market taker, that looks like a big incentive to me.

[DoubleSwapper]

Regarding this new "maker/taker" model, aren't those who provide the liquidity (i.e. those whose orders end up on the books) supposed to get a portion of the fee paid by those who take from the book?  This is the first time I've seen a "maker/taker" model described as both parties pay a fee with one just paying a lower fee.  This would seem to benefit Bitfinex a lot more than it would benefit traders, and I think it's going to end up creating a price divergence on this platform from other exchanges.  

A true maker/taker model (I think, and I'm no expert) should look like this:

Market makers receive 1/2 the fee paid by maker takers.
Market takers pay .3% fee (so Bitfinex receives .15%, and the market maker receives .15%).

This is how you "incentivize" being a market maker.  

this!

Thought about something similar but your idea seems to be an even better approach.
That fee structure would be a really incentive for being a market maker.

What´s your opinion Rapha/Giancarlo ?

I'm not a trader, so i might be wrong, but doesn't the new fee structure already incentivize being a market maker? A market maker only pays half the fee (or less, if you trade a lot) compared to a market taker, that looks like a big incentive to me.

Yet you still pay for every trade. Imagine getting actually paid for trade. That would even make me think about trading.

[halcyon]

Regarding this new "maker/taker" model, aren't those who provide the liquidity (i.e. those whose orders end up on the books) supposed to get a portion of the fee paid by those who take from the book?  This is the first time I've seen a "maker/taker" model described as both parties pay a fee with one just paying a lower fee.  This would seem to benefit Bitfinex a lot more than it would benefit traders, and I think it's going to end up creating a price divergence on this platform from other exchanges.  

A true maker/taker model (I think, and I'm no expert) should look like this:

Market makers receive 1/2 the fee paid by maker takers.
Market takers pay .3% fee (so Bitfinex receives .15%, and the market maker receives .15%).

This is how you "incentivize" being a market maker.  

this!

Thought about something similar but your idea seems to be an even better approach.
That fee structure would be a really incentive for being a market maker.

What´s your opinion Rapha/Giancarlo ?

I'm not a trader, so i might be wrong, but doesn't the new fee structure already incentivize being a market maker? A market maker only pays half the fee (or less, if you trade a lot) compared to a market taker, that looks like a big incentive to me.

mediocre incentive -> pay less fees then a market taker

but now think about the situation where some part of the fees taken from the market takers doesn´t disappear in bitfinex pockets but instead are distributed among the market makers.

= very huge incentive

which would result in:
-bigger orderbook
-more trading volume
...

And in the long run even Bitfinex would earn more by this, because more depth in the orderbook minimizes certain risks and increases the trading volume, which increases
the total fees.

A market maker incentive model where they earn (instead of just paying less) therefore would be a more sustainable approach

[gog1]

I like the idea of rebates to market maker, I see how you can up the fee to 0.25-0.3% on trader (hey, you get margin trading with significant funding for both long / short - not too many places you can find that), you can still leave it at 0.2% for exchange.  Then the 0.05-0.1% go to the market maker as rebate.

Supposingly, this may add more depth to the order book, resulting in lower slippage (good for trader / exchanger too), and allow for more orderly liquidation on margin calls.

[q33139768]

as far as I know:
1. the english versions of huobi.com and okcoin.com are under construction; okcoin has registered an offshore company for this business.
2. both of these websites received 10 million dollar investment in last month or two;
3. btcchina.com used to rank 1st in China's market, not any more simply because it keeps changing policy on fees.
4. i still think BFX is very competitive in off China's market. but the administrative seems lack of incentive to be more competitive. they don't really care if one day's trading volume only hits thousands, part of which done in bitstamp.
5. if i were them, secure the market before those aforementioned force them to.

[MustMan]

as far as I know:

1. the english versions of huobi.com and okcoin.com are under construction; okcoin has registered an offshore company for this business.
2. both of these websites received 10 million dollar investment in last month or two;
3. btcchina.com used to rank 1st in China's market, not any more simply because it keeps changing policy on fees.
4. i still think BFX is very competitive in off China's market. but the administrative seems lack of incentive to be more competitive. they don't really care if one day's trading volume only hits thousands, part of which done in bitstamp.
5. if i were them, secure the market before those aforementioned force them to.

Interestingly enough ,those who think they are bigger enough now and greedily charges more and more fees from people who accompanying their difficulty growing times.
Still Really so naive as to think that they could always gain customers support?？

[TERA]

In Bitfinex's latest statement, they claim their wire transfer withdrawal is the cheapest and fastest in the industry; even more so than Bitstamp. Is this true? Does anyone have any experience with this? I was under the impression that Bitstamp was the only reputable place to even submit a withdrawal and that I shouldn't even try to withdraw via another exchange. But it would be really nice if I COULD withdraw from Bitfinex because most of my fiat is already there and I wouldn't have to buy btc and send it to Bitstamp and sell.

[aragalie]

BFX team, i'm sorry for having to criticize but you guys are making some very brusque moves with apparent nonchalance.

1- Introduction of a "0.10% fee on all withdrawals and deposits" is a major milking of the Lenders, as i'm basically paying you 0.2% for a round-trip of deposit+withdrawal, for basically the exact same service? There's no risk for you, just paying the salary of a person who reconciles bank accounts. Don't you find this new fee a bit excessive?

2- 50% increase of the fees for Swap Liquidity providers....i understand that you might want to take a bigger part of the cake, but seriously, 50% hike with one simple email?

3- "Effective insurance of swaps" is a term that sounds very fishy, like the banks telling us they are using the best "risk assessment tools" and then going bankrupt when the first big crash happens. Please be so kind and explain to us how are you "effectively" insuring the swaps? It's like being pregnant: you either are or you aren't...you can't be "effectively" pregnant....

And i would like to stress on this point. If you have indeed found a financial institution willing to insure 16+ million dollars, please share with us the good news. Otherwise, if you are just relying on your ability to halt trading fast enough, or if you have a rich investor who "promised" to bear some of the losses, then we should know. That's a beaten path to getting a Black Swan event and wiping us all out. And the reasoning you are using to justify this increase is a Straw-man argument; what's the connection between your "reserves" (which for an un-audited company can mean anything) and the insurance you say you're providing?

You're a private company and can do whatever you like in this unregulated market, especially now with Mt. Gox gone. I can appreciate that, and the fact that you're just telling us about the changes and not consulting us at all (which is your right). Even so, i find this latest email a bit offensive in terms of the rate of fee hikes.

Should we expect another email in May with a 100% increase in the fees due to "effective" changes?

the recent changes were not meant to scam anybody or to sound fishy.
What we meant by insuring ( probably I didn't choose the right words for it) is that Bitfinex would have stood behind losses with the full power of its (limited) reserves.
This is by the way much less than the total amount of swaps currently stipulated ( more or less 10% of it).
I understand some people might not be satisfied with the current setup and I will think about your critics for the next days.
You might be right, for Bitfinex taking up so much liability for an extra 5% cut on swaps doesn't make much sense either.

This is the prove that in life no good deed goes unpunished.


Will keep you posted about it

Have a good day

Giancarlo
Bitfinex Team

Thanks for the reply Giancarlo. I know that you are a very straight talker, but please be aware that the more BFX grows, the more you need to watch the phrasing of your communications, especially an official announcement to your customers. Based on previous experience, and looking at what Gox is going through now, i would suggest you take some proactive steps to save BFX costly future legal battles:

1- As per regulation in most developed countries, customers have to have prior notice of any changes to the terms and conditions, as the T&C is considered a legal binding contract, and no contract can be changed unilaterally. The amount of time for the notice can depend, but i suggest a minimum of 2 weeks.

2- Also, please have us "Accept" again the new T&C when we log-in next time on the platform after the T&C changes, as that is the only legal proof that we have been notified and accepted the new conditions.

On the discussion of the insurance, i understand that BFX has more or less $1.5 million in reserves, and this is what you meant by "insurance", the fact that you will reimburse any losses up to that level. Please be aware that using words like "insurance" when you actually mean a very different thing (partial reimbursement of TOTAL losses for open SWAPS, up to $whatever number) can be seen as deceitful and again, will be a legal issue. As we've seen recently, you guys took steps to be legally compliant (e.g. renaming Loans to Swaps), so i trust you will give the same serious thought to my advice above. And just to set things straight for everyone, please make it clear here that you are not insuring the swaps, but simply doing a best-effort attempt at minimizing the losses in case of a crash.

On the discussion of "an extra 5% cut" on Swaps, you have increased the fee, percentage wise by 50% (FIFTY PERCENT). That a major increase, and again, it is not justified by your argument in the communication. So let's please not try to downplay the scale of it by using absolutes.

Again, i'm perfectly fine with the fact that this is not a democracy, that you are talking to us here only because you want to know our thoughts and not necessarily to consult us, and that basically you guys can do whatever you want. But, in case those $16+ millions on BFX are not concentrated in the hands of a few people (which you can convince with a telephone to absorb the increased fees), please try to manage in a better way such major changes from a PR/communications point of view. As a customer i feel deeply upset, and I'm sure you would not be happy if one of your service providers would increase their fees by 50% over night, using an argument that is not provable.

[2586]

It seems I'm no longer able to change my bitcoin deposit address on the deposit page. Clicking "Change Address" just reloads the page and displays the same address. I don't use litecoin, but out of curiosity I tried changing my litecoin deposit address and that seemed to work just fine. I'd really prefer not to link my transactions together by reusing addresses.

[CambioBTC]

as far as I know:
1. the english versions of huobi.com and okcoin.com are under construction; okcoin has registered an offshore company for this business.
2. both of these websites received 10 million dollar investment in last month or two;
3. btcchina.com used to rank 1st in China's market, not any more simply because it keeps changing policy on fees.
4. i still think BFX is very competitive in off China's market. but the administrative seems lack of incentive to be more competitive. they don't really care if one day's trading volume only hits thousands, part of which done in bitstamp.
5. if i were them, secure the market before those aforementioned force them to.

as far as I know:

1. the english versions of huobi.com and okcoin.com are under construction; okcoin has registered an offshore company for this business.
2. both of these websites received 10 million dollar investment in last month or two;
3. btcchina.com used to rank 1st in China's market, not any more simply because it keeps changing policy on fees.
4. i still think BFX is very competitive in off China's market. but the administrative seems lack of incentive to be more competitive. they don't really care if one day's trading volume only hits thousands, part of which done in bitstamp.
5. if i were them, secure the market before those aforementioned force them to.

Interestingly enough ,those who think they are bigger enough now and greedily charges more and more fees from people who accompanying their difficulty growing times.
Still Really so naive as to think that they could always gain customers support?？

Yes,

When Huobi.com starts to offer their English Version with Zero Fees / FREE Trades,
BitFinex Lenders and Owners will discover that increasing fees and behaving as a bunch of "Greedy Bankers"
is all a moot point when you find that there are no "TRADERS" left to lend to because they have all ran, not walked to
the exchange offering Zero Fee / FREE Trades.

Traders are not going to stand for being treated like second-class for too long with Zero Voice, an Exchange needs Traders just as it needs lenders.


It's called a "Bank Run", one day the Exchange / Bank has cash in their account, the next day they don't, if it can happen on Wall Street,
it can most definitely happen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run


A bank run (also known as a run on the bank) occurs in a fractional reserve banking system when a large number of customers withdraw their deposits from a financial institution at the same time and either demand cash or transfer those funds to a safer / better / more reasonable institution because they believe that the financial institution is, or might become, insolvent. As a bank run progresses, it generates its own momentum, in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy (or positive feedback loop) – as more people withdraw their deposits, the likelihood of default increases, thus triggering further withdrawals. This can destabilize the bank / exchange to the point where it runs out of cash and thus faces sudden bankruptcy.[1]


Depositors clamor to withdraw their savings from a bank in Berlin, 13 July 1931

[F-bernanke]

Bank runs are a GOOD thing.

actually we NEED bank/exchange runs. to test wether they run a fractional reserve or not. We need some kind of system to all agree to do an exchange run at on unpredictable time (so the exchanges can't lend large BTC/Fiat from elsewhere in time).

[8fold]

OCO orders option is now put in place.
-----------------------------------

What is the "OCO" order option?

OCO stands for "One-Cancels-the-Other Order". This option allows you to place a pair of orders stipulating that if one order is executed fully or partially, then the other order is automatically canceled. A one-cancels-the-other order (OCO) combines a stop order with a limit order. This option allows you to place both take profit and stop loss targets for your position.

Note: If you manually cancel one of the OCO orders pair, you have to manually cancel the other one. An OCO order is only automatically cancelled if the other order is partially or fully executed.

https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/support#oco

Finally! Well done guys!

[GurungBoi]

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
is anyone else hving problems.. having to put in their 2FA multiple times.. till it works? -_-