Bitget reopened USDC withdrawals over the Optimism network on October 14, only to suspend exactly the same withdrawal route again 14 hours and 26 minutes later, creating another availability problem for users trying to move the dollar-linked stablecoin off the exchange.
The crypto exchange announced at 07:48 UTC that USDC withdrawals through Optimism had resumed following a suspension that began the previous day. At 22:14 UTC, Bitget issued a new notice saying the route would again be suspended because of wallet maintenance.
No reopening time was provided for the second suspension. Bitget said the service would return at a date to be announced separately.
The sequence is notable because this was not simply one maintenance period extended longer than expected. Bitget explicitly reopened the route, left it available for more than 14 hours, and then separately closed it again.
USDC-Optimism Was Unavailable for More Than 13 Hours Before Reopening
The first interruption began at 18:26 UTC on October 13, when Bitget announced that USDC withdrawals through Optimism would be suspended for wallet maintenance.
The exchange provided no estimated restoration time. At 07:48 UTC the following day, Bitget said withdrawals had reopened, ending an interruption lasting approximately 13 hours and 22 minutes.
That reopening appeared to restore normal service. But at 22:14 UTC, Bitget published another suspension notice using essentially the same explanation: wallet maintenance.
The renewed shutdown means the route was available for just 14 hours and 26 minutes between the two incidents.
Bitget has not said whether the second suspension resulted from the same technical problem as the first, whether an issue was discovered after withdrawals resumed, or whether the later maintenance had been planned independently.
There is also no public confirmation showing how many USDC withdrawals were requested or successfully settled during the 14-hour reopening window.
Optimism Itself Does Not Appear to Have Been Down
The available evidence does not point to a broader Optimism network failure.
Optimism’s own status history reports 100% uptime during October for mainnet transaction sequencing, batch submission and node synchronization. Its current mainnet status also shows withdrawals and deposits operating normally.
That does not prove every application interacting with Optimism worked perfectly during the period. It does, however, make a chain-wide Optimism outage a poor explanation for Bitget’s withdrawal suspensions based on the public evidence currently available.
The more likely area for investigation is therefore Bitget’s own wallet and withdrawal infrastructure, although the company has disclosed too little technical information to identify the precise failure.
USDC itself is natively issued on OP Mainnet, meaning centralized exchanges can support direct USDC withdrawals to the network without relying on the older bridged USDC.e token structure.
Other USDC Networks Were Also Under Maintenance
The Optimism interruption occurred amid a broader series of USDC withdrawal maintenance events at Bitget.
Seven minutes before the October 13 Optimism suspension, Bitget suspended USDC withdrawals through Polygon, also citing wallet maintenance. Polygon withdrawals reopened at 05:02 UTC on October 14, nearly three hours before Optimism reopened.
Bitget had also temporarily suspended USDC withdrawals over Ethereum earlier on October 13 and Arbitrum One on October 12.
Those incidents do not establish that all four interruptions shared one technical cause. They do show that the Optimism suspension was not occurring in isolation inside Bitget’s broader stablecoin withdrawal infrastructure.
The Optimism route has also experienced this specific problem before. Bitget suspended USDC-Optimism withdrawals for wallet maintenance on September 16 at 20:40 UTC and reopened them at 03:07 UTC on September 17, an interruption of approximately six hours and 27 minutes.
The Timing Matters After Bitget’s September Wallet Breach
The repeated wallet maintenance deserves additional attention because Bitget is only weeks removed from a major security incident involving its wallet infrastructure.
On September 24, Bitget detected unauthorized transactions affecting hot and warm wallets. The exchange ultimately estimated that approximately $387.5 million in assets had been transferred during the incident.
Subsequent disclosures indicated that a critical backend wallet system had been compromised, allowing false transaction information to reach systems responsible for authorizing transfers even though Bitget said its private keys and cold wallets had not themselves been compromised.
Bitget then restored withdrawals gradually rather than switching every asset and network back on simultaneously. Ethereum withdrawals were restored across several EVM networks, including Optimism, before USDT and the remaining assets followed.
By October 2, Bitget said the staged recovery was complete. During that process, USDT withdrawals were among the major services brought back online following additional security checks.
There is currently no evidence connecting the October 13-14 USDC maintenance directly to that September security breach. Treating the new suspension as another security incident would therefore go beyond the facts.
But the recent history does make Bitget’s wallet operations unusually important to scrutinize. When an exchange has just rebuilt or hardened withdrawal infrastructure after a major compromise, repeated maintenance on a specific asset-network route deserves a clearer technical explanation than it otherwise might.
Reopening a Route Creates a Different Expectation Than Leaving It Suspended
The most interesting part of the October 14 sequence is not that Bitget performed wallet maintenance. Exchanges regularly disable individual networks while upgrading wallets, synchronizing nodes, managing liquidity or carrying out security work.
The interesting part is the reopening.
When an exchange leaves a route suspended, users know the service is unavailable. When the exchange announces that withdrawals have resumed, customers reasonably interpret that as confirmation that the underlying withdrawal path has passed whatever operational or security checks caused it to be disabled.
Closing that same route 14 hours later introduces uncertainty over what that reopening actually represented.
If the first maintenance did not fully solve the underlying problem, Bitget needs to explain what failed after service resumed. If the second maintenance was unrelated, stating that clearly would prevent users from assuming the first repair was unstable.
The Missing Evidence Is What Happened During Those 14 Hours
The crucial question now is whether USDC withdrawals submitted during the reopened period were processed normally.
There is currently no credible public evidence showing a backlog of failed transactions from that window, but there is also no operational data from Bitget demonstrating settlement rates, failed withdrawal counts or whether some requests remained pending when the second suspension began.
That matters because a withdrawal service can technically be marked “open” while still experiencing degraded processing behind the interface.
If transactions requested between 07:48 and 22:14 UTC settled normally on Optimism, the story looks more like two separate maintenance events occurring unusually close together.
If withdrawals were delayed, rejected or left pending during that window, the stronger interpretation would be that service was restored before the withdrawal stack had reached durable stability.
The distinction is important for exchange users. Availability is not simply whether a withdrawal button is enabled. What matters is whether the exchange can consistently construct, authorize, broadcast and settle the requested transaction on the selected network.
For now, Bitget has confirmed the repeated suspension but not explained the mechanics behind it. With Optimism itself showing no corresponding mainnet outage, the unanswered question sits squarely inside the exchange: why was USDC withdrawal access considered ready to reopen at 07:48 UTC, and what changed enough over the next 14 hours and 26 minutes to shut the same route again?
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574