Binance status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Binance reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Binance users through our website.

• Transactions (44%)
• Website (33%)
• Mobile App (11%)
• Login (11%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Binance outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Angers	Login	14 days ago
Itu	Website	20 days ago
Seattle	Website	20 days ago
Nice	Mobile App	30 days ago
Beaucaire	Transactions	2 months ago
Beaucaire	Transactions	2 months ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Binance Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Crstn (@cyelluzie) reported 2 minutes ago

  @0xJonnyDee i think after the execs plead guilty and left, it was just a slow grind to this. much of trust was lost and traders migrated mostly to binance and other exchanges with faster and better aesthetic UI

• 
  Gems Trending | All Chain 💸 (@GemsTrendingNew) reported 4 minutes ago

  BTC quantum-defense headlines are getting louder while Binance-only BTC perp funding has cooled hard. Latest BTC perpetual funding on Binance: 0.000271%. Across the supplied 60-point window, it is down 92.8%. That does not prove bearish positioning. It does say leveraged-long pressure, in this available Binance-only funding data, looks cooler rather than overheated. Now place that next to the narrative. CoinDesk reported BlackRock, Coinbase, Strategy were in a group pledging $15 million to prepare Bitcoin for quantum threats. Important boundary: members direct funding independently, and the consortium takes no role in Bitcoin governance or protocol decisions. Separately, BTC / ETH / Doge Headlines reported BlackRock and Coinbase joined a $15M Bitcoin quantum push. Those quantum-funding reports are single-source items, not cross-verified as one combined fact. Treat them as narrative inputs, not one fused master receipt. So the setup is narrower, cleaner, and less dramatic than CT will probably make it: Bitcoin security narrative is getting fresh oxygen, but Binance perp funding is not flashing a crowded leveraged-long chase in the supplied data. No BTC spot price, ETF flow, on-chain, options, or volume facts supplied. So no price-impact claim, no institutional-demand claim, no ETF-flow cosplay, no whale-wallet fan fiction. Just narrative attention versus one concrete perp-positioning measure. If this continues, BTC quantum-defense headlines could develop without an immediate crowded-perp-long signal. That suggests the market may still be treating quantum defense as long-cycle infrastructure, not short-term momentum fuel. The tension is unresolved. Funding can reheat quickly. Invalidation would be BTC perp funding rises sharply from the latest reading. Confirmation on governance would require verified evidence showing the consortium directly influences Bitcoin governance or protocol decisions — the supplied CoinDesk fact says the opposite. Security narrative: live. Leveraged perp exuberance: not confirmed here.

• 
  Poly Diction (@giddings_nga) reported 5 minutes ago

  the day i stopped handing over full keys was the day liquidations lost their grip on me. just trade-only api access now, no withdrawals possible. the partial sell trigger kicks in automatically and keeps my binance futures position alive instead of going to zero

• 
  Trading Strategy (@TradingProtocol) reported 7 minutes ago

  @snj_peters There is a difference between "discretionary" and "discretionary " with predefined trading rules limited by a smart contract. For example, if the vault curator is limited to taking only certain BTC and ETH trades and certain lending positions, the risk to the vault depositor is very, very low. This likely does not warrant regulation. The only risk is bad trades. Then we have Mainstreet and some vaults that just transfer all assets to a centralised Binance account and can do whatever they want with the money, e.g. buy Ferraris, without rules, transparency, and smart contract protection. We should call the latter vaults "full custodian" and separate "full custodian" from "discretionary." Because smart contracts enable the difference. TradFi does not. That's why TradFi has tons of regulation, to prevent the fund manager from just taking all the money. But in DeFi, smart contracts already prevent that. We do not need regulation to prevent something that is impossible. It is a waste of cigarettes.

• 
  Black Zalophous (@BlackZalophous) reported 7 minutes ago

  $vanry fully retraced it shitpump. It means binance wont support migration and all vanry tokens will be worthless and delisted @Vanarchain

• 
  Gss (@gss_crypto) reported 8 minutes ago

  $BANK follow-up — price and open interest are both climbing together now, and the wallet flow underneath is worth breaking down Binance saw roughly 4M BANK (~$750K) move out to Gate, Bitget, MEXC, and KuCoin in the last 24h — spread across exchanges, not concentrated into one Bitget's side is the interesting part: received about 2.4M BANK, then turned around and moved 9.6M BANK (~$1.74M) into cold storage — that's supply getting pulled off the hot wallet, not prepped for sale Gate did the opposite — 4.3M BANK (~$1M) came out of cold storage back onto the hot wallet, which usually means one thing: getting ready to move, likely toward selling or distribution separately, about 670K BANK landed on Binance via ChangeNOW from unidentified wallets — new entries into the system that don't trace back to known holders yet net picture: no actual dump has hit yet, tokens are just repositioning across venues. but combine this with the unlock math from before — total supply 2.1B against 425M circulating, and vesting getting accelerated back in May — and this kind of pre-positioning across multiple exchanges is exactly what you'd expect to see before, not after, a bigger move still watching the unlock schedule most closely, but now also watching if Gate's hot wallet balance keeps growing

• 
  Brandon (@BullishVictory) reported 8 minutes ago

  @muneeb @binance There's a full-blown crisis, and you seriously think leaving a reply on Twitter is going to fix it? Are you kidding me? What is this, amateur hour?

• 
  BitGuru 🔶 (@bitgu_ru) reported 10 minutes ago

  @bullishbanter01 The biggest issue I have seen so far is the reach issue, Every other platform has at least reach of 5% of its audience and thats why people follow you to watch your content. But on Binance Square its like with you have 200K or 20K you might have same reach of 2K-4K views only.

• 
  Algorithm.btc (@godfred_xcuz) reported 11 minutes ago

  I just woke up to Binance putting a monitoring tag on STX on its platform. This might be expected as part of the network upgrade procedure, though it is impactful. But the good news is Stacks team is aware and is working with Binance team on this. Binance decided to put this label on STX, which is not really understandable because they are aware of Stacks' upcoming upgrade (hard fork implementation). My personal view is that this can be an error in Binance's judgment on the hard fork implementation. For instance, if Binance can't go through the node upgrade or other resources related to the hard fork implementation on time, they can put this label on the project. Not because the project is bad, but because they are not able to upgrade on time, which might impact their users in the meantime. Great to see the community is aware of this asap and reacting to it 🙌. Binance team is getting the help needed to implement the hard fork successfully. I am confident that this error will be resolved asap since they are getting help from Stacks.

• 
  0xAyush (@ayush152002) reported 13 minutes ago

  Don't judge a crypto wallet just by its interface. Ask one question instead: Who controls the private keys? The answer determines whether your wallet is a "custodial" or "non-custodial". Let's decode what is the difference between custodial wallet and non-custodial wallets. 👇 1. Custodial wallet : A custodial wallet is a cryptocurrency wallet where a third party generates, stores, and manages the user's private keys on behalf of the user. The user then accesses their assets through username/password , but does not have direct control over the private keys. In other word "You own the account but the custodian controls the keys that move your crypto." Example : Coinbase , Binance Advantages: a. Easy to use b. Forgotten passwords can usually be recovered. c. Users can contact the service provider for assistance. d. Easy access to exchanges, swaps, and other services. disadvantages: a. you don't control the private key hence you don't have complete control over the crypto. b. Less privacy 2. Non-custodian wallet : A non-custodial wallet is a type of cryptocurrency wallet where the user has complete control over the private keys required to access and authorize transactions involving their digital assets Non-custodial = No third party holds custody of your funds or keys. Example : MetaMask ,ledger Advantages: a. Users directly control assets. b. Privacy c. Transparency d. access to defi disadvantages: a. Lost Keys = Lost Access b. Higher Risk of User Error

• 
  itez (@itezofficial) reported 14 minutes ago

  BMEX crashed 92% in a day BitMEX is shutting down on September 23 after 11 years. Registrations are already closed, from August 26 users can only reduce positions In 2019 the exchange held 57% of the derivatives market and ran over $1 trillion in annual volume. It had been looking for a buyer since February 2025 and never found one This isn't a one-off story: smaller derivatives platforms can't keep up with Binance and Bybit on liquidity anymore, BitMEX is just the first clear example

• 
  Noble Ironside 🦾📈 (@NobleIrons7de) reported 15 minutes ago

  I think we would all like it if the $FEFER chart moves in this mannner and path and reaches for new ATH Previous ATH was 16m New ATH possible? Of course, very very feasible seeing how strong the chart has held and how massive the support it is receiving from the Stable Ecosystem. Don't forget top Gs like @suganarium and @CoinGurruu are in this also. Tether CEO, @paoloardoino himself also started this journey for $FEFER. Pretty sure they don't let it waste now or die too early. Mexc already teasing a $FEFER listing After that comes many; the bybit, the Kucoin and prolly even Binance etc Tether has got that much influence as an ecosystem and infrastructure that has sustained crypto and web3 participations and operations over the years. Over 500k+ transaction now on the chain signaling heavy activities. Your best bets; $FEFER and 1$

• 
  Rei Researcher (@Satoureireal) reported 15 minutes ago

  Stablecoin Deposits on Binance Are Becoming More Active, but Not Truly Explosive Yet Data from CryptoQuant shows that the number of ERC20 stablecoin deposit transactions into Binance is currently around 12K transactions, after several strong spikes appeared in July. This shows that stablecoin activity moving onto Binance is still being maintained, reflecting that some liquidity is returning to the exchange to prepare for trading or wait for buying opportunities. However, the current level has cooled down compared to the previous large spikes, so it is still too early to say that stablecoin inflows are clearly exploding again.

• 
  Jonah Mukisa (@JonahMukis1556) reported 16 minutes ago

  Hello sir, I am in Uganda. Please help me out with. Some money on my Binance address: 0xd3e0622f65f21689e5c800f1dd0c4dbcec7d10da any thing you have please help me. @sargeant2026

• 
  Zafat (@nogigsontheway) reported 17 minutes ago

  @NoahBPerlman Dear Noah, seeking for help. No movement recovering my funds from Binance. Have received all official email confirms that the payment is in payout more than 3 times but no transfer. Payment has been postponed many times. Waiting for almost a year to recover.

• 
  Brutal Crypto Brief (@BrutalDegenX) reported 20 minutes ago

  Binance just flagged ACX, LSK & STX for possible delisting - monitoring tag = death row for most alts Three coins on the chopping block. This is how it starts. Holders better have an exit plan 📉 $ACX $LSK #crypto

• 
  C A Z R O (@CazroWeb3) reported 20 minutes ago

  - @binance started as a crypto exchange. Nine years later, I don’t think that’s the same way to describe it anymore. DefiLlama’s latest research was that one direction in my opinion Tokenized RWAs grew from $5.5B to $25B by mid-2026, while Binance’s BTC perpetual liquidity reached $536M within 1% of the mid-price. Moving beyond Crypto vs TradFi Stocks, gold, tokenized assets, and crypto are increasingly becoming part of the same financial experience. Maybe the future is having access to all the markets from one place.

• 
  wojak (@Maxime_K17) reported 20 minutes ago

  @binance Chart is upside down brah

• 
  Kiva 🏴‍☠️ (@cx_00) reported 21 minutes ago

  @moneycetamol247 @Poloniex not so sure about that one... had some issues with fees and customer support. been using binance for years now, no complaints

• 
  Jonah | DeSpread 🦉 (@bobo2bin) reported 24 minutes ago

  Binance placing $STX under the Monitoring Tag is the direct result of the @Stacks leadership ignoring and alienating its community. Instead of listening to the genuine supporters who truly cared about Stacks, they chose to listen only to a handful of people who offered blind, unconditional support. This is the outcome of that approach. Nevertheless, for the sake of the community, I sincerely hope the Stacks team provides a proper explanation and takes the necessary steps to have STX removed from Binance’s Monitoring Tag. Please do not ignore the voices of the community this time either.

• 
  moruk (@serdalGkde73828) reported 25 minutes ago

  @cz_binance If only Binance would shut down so we could be done with the crypto business; that way, they wouldn't be able to cause too much damage.

• 
  Mubarak Bin Amin 🔶 (@Mubarakbinamin) reported 26 minutes ago

  Since my old account, I have always advised people: if you want to hold your crypto for the long term, avoid keeping it in a custodial wallet. By custodial wallets, I mean platforms like Binance, MEXC, Bitget, Bybit, and others. The problem is that whenever the platform faces serious issues or collapses, your assets could be at risk too. If you want to hold your crypto, consider using a non-custodial wallet such as MetaMask, Trust Wallet, OKX Wallet, Binance Wallet, and others. Even if the wallet app itself stops working, you can import your wallet into another compatible wallet using your recovery phrase and still access your assets. A non-custodial wallet is essentially a way of having direct control over your assets on the blockchain. No company or exchange has full control over your funds. When an exchange shuts down, people may leave their assets there for years, hoping the platform will eventually return. But sometimes, that day never comes. Share this message to help your fellow crypto users understand the importance of taking control of their own assets. And yes, this is my new account after Mark permanently disabled my old one.

• 
  Okada_Research (@Okada_DeFi0x) reported 29 minutes ago

  @Bitt_Belle @binance @BinanceAcademy Access is nice but who owns the risk when it breaks

• 
  Eizab05 (@eizab05) reported 30 minutes ago

  Tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) could become the gateway investment for the next billion users, allowing fractional ownership of bonds, real estate, and treasuries with global access. #Binance

• 
  Pure TA (@Psychometriks) reported 35 minutes ago

  @Mtrl_Scientist plus tons of regulations in Europe. Binance could not cope with many and close service is quite a few countries lately sad reality but crypto is in bad shape

• 
  Danny Winss (@DannyWinss) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Bybit_Official Instead of supporting community that pushes your mascot, putting a lot of efforts to support your brand you just deny it all. That's not right. I'm really disappointed. Just look at BiBi & what CZ & binance did.

• 
  Gems Trending | All Chain 💸 (@GemsTrendingNew) reported 41 minutes ago

  BTC under $64K is not automatically a breakdown with a macro villain attached. Cointelegraph reported Bitcoin fell under $64K as surging US bond yields boosted Fed rate-hike odds, with dips under $64,000 and Binance bid liquidity described as reemerging. Fine. That is a sourced narrative. But in this bundle, the yield-pressure claim comes from single-authoritative Cointelegraph reporting only. No verified US yield data in bundle. No verified order-book data beyond Cointelegraph description. So the clean read is not “yields caused BTC weakness,” and definitely not “Binance saved it.” CT loves a cape. The data here does not hand one out. The daily close data only says BTC/USDT last closed at 63880.64 USDT. The 20-day SMA is 64234.8. The 50-day SMA is 63157.15. Price sits between them, below the short SMA, above the longer one. That is sideways compression, not a confirmed bear trend. Nearest support is 63100 USDT. Nearest resistance is 66956.15 USDT. BTC is also only 24% up its 90-session range, with the range low at 57800.19 and high at 82850. So yes, the tape is closer to the downside tripwire than the upside breakout level. Bears have a level to prove. They have not proven it yet. Volume is falling, recent third of the window versus prior third. That weakens the case for treating the sub-$64K move as a high-conviction directional break from current evidence alone. Falling volume could mean the sub-$64K move needs confirmation before treating it as a durable breakdown. If this continues, a close below 63100 USDT could suggest the sideways regime is losing support. A reclaim of 64234.8 USDT may keep BTC range-bound rather than confirm downside continuation. Confirmation cuts both ways. Downside pressure gets cleaner only if 63100 USDT fails on daily close data. Range repair improves if BTC/USDT remains above 63100 USDT while reclaiming the 20-day SMA. Upside invalidates the local squeeze if BTC/USDT breaks above 66956.15 USDT. Also valid: fresh data revises sideways regime or support/resistance levels. Until then, the tape says compression below the 20-day SMA near support, not macro fan fiction with a liquidation soundtrack.

• 
  0xhanzala (@0xhanzala) reported 47 minutes ago

  I would like to make a suggestion to @binance regarding @BinanceWallet campaigns. Whenever a project is listed in the Binance Wallet campaign section, the estimated listing date should also be clearly mentioned. This would provide greater transparency and help users understand how long the campaign is expected to run, allowing them to make informed decisions about the time and funds they wish to invest. As Binance is one of the most credible and trusted cryptocurrency exchanges, implementing this practice would further strengthen user confidence and improve the overall experience. For example, campaigns such as @REVApay_ai done it's booster campaign and pre-tge without any clear indication of when the project might be listed, leaving users uncertain about what to expect. I kindly request that Binance ensure future Wallet campaigns include an estimated listing timeline to provide better clarity and transparency for all users.

• 
  Unknown.Ai (@UnknowTraderAi) reported 52 minutes ago

  How did the exchange that invented crypto perpetuals end up shutting down? And what was its connection to the 10/10 crash? BitMEX announced today that it will permanently close on September 23, 2026, ending an 11-year run following a strategic review by parent company HDR Global Trading. New registrations have already been halted. Starting August 26, the exchange will enter reduce-only mode, blocking users from opening new positions. All remaining contracts will be forcibly closed before the final deadline, so users are being urged to close positions and withdraw their funds. Founded in 2014 by Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo, and Samuel Reed, BitMEX completely changed crypto trading. In May 2016, it launched XBTUSD, the first major perpetual swap, introducing 100x leverage, 8-hour funding rates, auto-deleveraging, and insurance funds. Perpetual contracts quickly became crypto’s dominant trading instrument and are now offered by nearly every major exchange. BitMEX controlled a huge share of the derivatives market between 2017 and 2020, but its decline started after US regulatory charges over KYC and AML compliance forced leadership changes and a mandatory verification overhaul. During that period, competitors such as Binance, Bybit, and OKX captured most of its traders, liquidity, and market share. BitMEX officially cited a strategic review of the business and the wider crypto industry. However, its declining volume and commercial viability were likely major factors behind the decision. The October 10 crash had nothing to do with BitMEX’s shutdown. Its systems maintained 100% uptime throughout the event, with no major operational failure or liquidation crisis. The closure resulted from years of declining market share and commercial viability, not the crash. BitMEX invented the product that reshaped crypto trading. Its competitors simply scaled and maintained it better.

• 
  Hydareth乍得 (@0xHydar) reported 56 minutes ago

  @mr_bullishh binance needs to fix this ASAP