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.

• Website (43%)
• Transactions (29%)
• Mobile App (14%)
• Login (14%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Angers	Login	21 days ago
Itu	Website	27 days ago
Seattle	Website	27 days ago
Nice	Mobile App	1 month 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:

• 
  ilia (@ilia_el_pro) reported 3 minutes ago

  also minimax $E5A eu AND $MINIMAX spread took a L i really think since binance got on this stocks they also IBKR sh... you fills on adr on europe are ****...

• 
  Prado 🔥💧 (@kingprado31) reported 7 minutes ago

  GM Space While the timeline is still asleep arguing about candles… $NEAR just quietly became one of the only chains that can scale itself and pay for AI at the same time. Dynamic resharding already auto split a shard this month. No governance vote. No downtime. Just pure elastic growth. And now you can stake $NEAR get monthly AI compute credits for confidential agents. No credit card. No cloud account. Just the token itself turning into intelligence. $SOL didn’t wait either. They just juiced block capacity by 66% overnight (60M to 100M compute units). Same day Morgan Stanley’s Solana product kept eating inflows. Quiet infrastructure flex while price is still chewing the $72–74 zone. This week’s new blood? GRVT and AEON got the full CEX treatment (OKX, KuCoin, Bitget). MarsCoin woke up, hit Binance Alpha, and went parabolic.

• 
  Backtesting Arena (@SifuBacktest) reported 7 minutes ago

  𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗪𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 — 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝘆𝗰𝗸𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 In the first article we showed that the Wyckoff Spring runs against the documented order-flow research. Carol Osler's work indicates that price accelerates after crossing stop-loss clusters rather than reversing — and the Spring lives in exactly that zone. This article is the pre-registration. The rules for our test, published before we have calculated a single number. Including a control group that exposed a gap in our own method. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 We read three public Wyckoff scripts for TradingView, all under the Mozilla Public License. One detects the entire schematic with a state machine across all five phases. One marks Springs only. One does something else entirely, which we come back to. The difference is instructive, and it is not about the authors' care. PHASES ARE STATES, NOT EVENTS. The larger script carries a variable travelling from Phase A to Phase E, driven by roughly twenty hard-coded thresholds. The state depends on the whole path price took to get there. It never resets and it never expires. So you cannot say "there were 47 Phase C events, and on average this followed." There are no 47 events. There is a state that was entered at some point and gets overwritten by something else at another. A Spring is a timestamp. Timestamps can be counted, set against what happened next, and compared to a baseline. Testability is a property of scope, not of diligence. All three scripts are competently written. Only some ask a question that can have an answer. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 If you code a rule, look at the result, then adjust the parameters, you will always end up finding something. Not through dishonesty — it happens on its own. You try a different pivot length because the first one "didn't look right". You nudge the volume threshold. Five passes later you have a rule that works on exactly this data and nothing else. The only mechanical protection is writing the rules down beforehand and publishing them. After that they cannot be changed quietly. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 • PIVOT — a bar whose low is below the six bars before it and no higher than the six after. Which means it confirms six bars late. That is deliberate: it was not known earlier, so it may not be used earlier • VALID LEVEL — a confirmed pivot low that was also the low of its trailing twenty bars. That puts it at the bottom edge of a range rather than somewhere in the middle • SPRING — price trades below a valid level but closes above it. The low must also be the lowest of the trailing twenty bars, and the level must not have been broken more than three times before. Each level fires at most once • ENTRY — at the close of the bar the Spring occurs on. Not at the low. The low was not tradeable at the moment of the decision • MEASURED — price movement over 5, 10 and 20 bars afterward, net of 0.1% costs per side. No optimised exit, no stop, or the study answers a different question • BENCHMARK — the unconditional forward return over the same horizons, same window, same universe • UNIVERSE — Bitcoin plus the nine most-traded USDT pairs on Binance, ranked by December 2019 volume, not by today's survivors: BTC, ETH, MATIC, BNB, TRX, XRP, EOS, LTC, BCH, VET. That MATIC ranked third then and VET tenth is the point — today's list would differ The benchmark is the single most important item on the list. A positive return after a Spring says nothing until you know what the market did anyway over the same stretch. And the 2020-dated universe is the reason the number will not just be a survivorship artefact. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗢𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗿 Here is the property that matters. Our rule only fires once the close has ALREADY RECLAIMED support. It therefore does not predict the reversal — it selects precisely those cases where the cascade failed to run. So the question is no longer "does price reverse after a break". It becomes: does the subset where the cascade did not run behave differently afterward than the market as a whole? Narrower, sharper, answerable. Without Osler's paper we would not have framed it this way. 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 The teaching is not unanimous here. A Spring is read one way as absorption by large buyers — which implies high volume. And another way as evidence that no supply remains — which implies low. Both readings are common. So we measure three ways: no volume condition, high volume, low volume. If both extremes give the same answer, volume is not doing the work and the price pattern carries it alone. Both of the first two scripts test only for high volume. Neither notes that this was a choice. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗶𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 The third script defines the Spring like this: RSI rises above 30. That is all. No price level, no support, no trading range, no break with recovery, no volume. An oscillator crossing with a Wyckoff label on it. And it would test perfectly well. You could run it through the same machine — sample gate, benchmark, multiple-testing correction, look-ahead check — and get a clean number. For a question that has nothing to do with Wyckoff. Which exposes a gap we had not named. Everything else we check concerns the RELIABILITY of a result: is the number reproducible, is future information leaking in, does it hold against the right comparison. None of those checks asks WHETHER THE THING MEASURED IS THE THING ON THE LABEL. A backtest can be methodologically flawless and still measure the wrong thing. That is not an edge case. It is probably the more common failure — because it leaves no trace in the metrics. 𝗦𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗼 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 The RSI crossing becomes a control group. Same horizons, same baseline, same costs, same gates. The placebo measures plain reversion from oversold. Our Spring additionally measures a price-level structure — the break and recovery of a confirmed support. Whatever the Wyckoff definition contributes on its own is exactly the gap between the two. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 Fixed in advance, because otherwise any configuration can be narrated into a finding afterward. • Spring works, placebo does not — the price-level structure contributes something • Both work, similar size — the Spring mostly measures oversold reversion, and the label is decoration • Both work, placebo clearly smaller — both effects are real and the structure adds on top • Neither works — neither rule shows anything on this data • Only the placebo works — the simpler rule beats the more elaborate one That last row is the outcome we would least enjoy. It is on the list for exactly that reason. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 • Under one standard error of difference — no detectable effect, regardless of sign • Under 30 events per variant — anecdote, reported as one • Fewer than 12 distinct months — one observation, not forty • Twelve combinations tested — corrected for multiple testing via the deflated Sharpe ratio • Prefix test — the series is computed twice, once on truncated data, and overlapping values must match exactly 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 We publish the result whatever it is. Effect found, no effect, or too few Springs to say anything. All three accepted in advance, all three reported the same way. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 A backtest whose rules were written after the first look at the numbers looks exactly like one whose rules came first. Same chart, same metrics, same confidence. The difference is the order — and the order does not appear anywhere in the output. So it appears here instead. Beforehand, with a date on it. The result follows. Study the Past — Improve your Future.

• 
  Troy Root (@TroyxRoot) reported 7 minutes ago

  @tommyrulznyc @BrendanPedersen More like the problem of money laundering to the RNC (and DNC) from foreign governments aided by Coinbase, Binance, Tether, Circle and Anchorage Digital. Audit World Liberty Financial.

• 
  Shivay (@CryptoShivay) reported 7 minutes ago

  🚨 JUST IN: Binance founder CZ says he supports all memecoins and may even buy or sell one or two in the coming weeks to test new ideas. He also clarified that recent meme token sales linked to wallets associated with him were not personal trades. Instead, Giggle Academy routinely converts donated tokens into BNB at month-end to help fund its free education initiative.

• 
  Troy Root (@TroyxRoot) reported 12 minutes ago

  @wpkindred @BrendanPedersen More like the problem of money laundering to the RNC (and DNC) from foreign governments aided by Coinbase, Binance, Tether, Circle and Anchorage Digital. Audit World Liberty Financial.

• 
  ZORD CRYPT (@zordcrypt) reported 14 minutes ago

  @LordOfAlts @binance Earning on idle crypto can help, as long as risks understood.

• 
  Strawhat Kyle🐂🀄️ (@FB_strawhatkyle) reported 15 minutes ago

  @webhogwatrs Wow true builder you allow listing bundled coin on meme stock binance **** off

• 
  Alastar (@AlastarTrades) reported 18 minutes ago

  $BANK update On July 28, after the squeeze, I wrote that supply had moved onto hot wallets and there was more of it than at any point that week. Price is down 78% since then. Everything swept into cold storage during the accumulation phase is now back out: Bitget pulled 38M BANK from cold in four batches Gate pulled 18.348M, the same inventory it swept in yesterday Both hot wallets are now depositing straight into Binance Deposits into Binance have not slowed. Last 4h candle closed down 32.7%. BANK, AKE and US run through the same deposit addresses. The full sequence is now on record. #bank #bankusdt

• 
  Kryptex 💎 (@KryptexMining) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Barack_McBush @RedPandaMining @BitsBeTrippin You are free to use whichever method is most convenient for you. If the time limit expires, the payment will be canceled automatically, and you can reorder it. For example, MEXC or Binance allow 60 minutes for Lightning invoices. The exact time depends on the receiving service.

• 
  sdm (@lordsambrah) reported 23 minutes ago

  @openglobe8 @Aster_DEX That's a problem that fixes itself over time as liquidity gravitates towards the platform. 90% of the products time has been spent in a bear market, not worried. They could share the order books with Binance and its game over. Time will tell, each quarter it's improving.

• 
  FeeFreeStampede (@ZombiLiving) reported 23 minutes ago

  @iampaulgrewal @coinbase All banks have to do is shutdown coinbade and kraken and binance the entire US crypto market dies... like @federalreserve could send btc to zero shutting down 3 exchanges... because you guys pushed all the other exchabges over seas for monopoly

• 
  Saanjana Nikita (@Saanjana_Nikita) reported 24 minutes ago

  ok, everyone's talking about the @grvt_io listings. Coinbase, Binance Alpha, Bybit... that's getting all the attention. but honestly, that's not what caught my eye. the stable funding perps part did. if you've traded perps before, you know the trade usually isn't the problem. it's waking up and seeing funding flip against you overnight. having something more predictable actually makes a difference. then i looked a bit deeper. $400B+ in volume and 100k+ wallets. definitely doesn't feel like another empty project. and being able to trade, earn, and invest from one balance is just easier. no bouncing between a bunch of apps. that's the stuff i actually pay attention to. not the hype. the parts that just work.

• 
  Ardian's (@Ardian3D) reported 25 minutes ago

  @zulfi12567 seems like binance is trying to cut down on unnecessary apps u use

• 
  Cryptogoddm (@Cryptogoddm) reported 26 minutes ago

  @ezeroho8245 I’m bullish on 401k,applcat,rwa too. Built from Flap on Robinhood chain, it is still working. If it appears in Binance Alpha Stock, it will rise easily. Rwa+meme+flap will bring wealth. @eth_cedric still hold 1.5% 401k 401k has Good narrative

• 
  Kresmion | Market Intelligence (@Kresmion) reported 26 minutes ago

  ETH positioning is pulling in two directions. Perp funding is positive at about 5.7% annualized and longs are roughly two thirds of open positioning on Binance, so leverage is leaning long. But the Deribit options chain implies about a 56% chance ETH trades down to $1,500 by year end, while the Polymarket crowd prices the same move at about 43%. The options book is the more cautious of the two. Two order books, one coin, different read. $ETH

• 
  Mark yu (@Markymarco34) reported 29 minutes ago

  Dear Muneeb and Alex, I would like to explain why the relationship between Korean STX holders and the Stacks leadership has inevitably become increasingly strained. Korean investors are not a peripheral part of the STX market. Korean exchanges have often represented a dominant share of STX spot liquidity—at times reportedly close to 80%. Whether the exact figure on any particular day is 80% or somewhat lower, the central point remains the same: Korean holders and traders have provided a disproportionately large share of STX’s real spot-market liquidity. Despite this, many Korean holders feel that their concerns are repeatedly answered with the same long-term vision and roadmap. The problem is not that Korean investors fail to understand the long-term potential of Stacks. The problem is that STX has been declining for nearly two years and is now trading below $0.20. At this price level, it is extremely difficult to persuade holders simply by explaining what the network may become several years from now. There is also a specific deadline facing Korean investors. Under Korea’s current tax framework, beginning on January 1, 2027, virtual-asset gains above the annual exemption will be subject to a 20% national tax, or 22% including local income tax. Korean holders are therefore facing a concrete financial and regulatory change, while the leadership continues to emphasize plans whose benefits may only become visible much later. No one is asking the team to guarantee the price of STX. We understand that no development team can control the market. However, price cannot simply be treated as irrelevant. Price represents market confidence, liquidity, accessibility, investor trust, and the market’s judgment of whether execution is producing real value. After nearly two years of decline, repeated delays and disruptions, and a price below $0.20, repeating the long-term vision alone is no longer sufficient. Korean holders need clear and measurable near-term accountability, including: Transparent communication regarding the Binance Monitoring Tag A clear explanation of token issuance and future supply pressure Measurable evidence of PoX-5 stability and adoption Better communication with exchanges and the Korean community Concrete three-to-six-month milestones for restoring market confidence The tension between Korean holders and the leadership does not exist because Korean investors are impatient or incapable of understanding the technology. It exists because Korean investors have supplied a significant portion of STX’s liquidity, endured an extraordinary decline, and are now approaching a new tax regime—while repeatedly hearing the same distant promises. Please engage directly with the Korean community and acknowledge the current market reality openly. You cannot convincingly explain a distant future while STX is trading below $0.20 without also explaining what will be done in the near term to restore trust. This is not hostility toward Stacks. It is frustration from one of the most economically important communities in the STX market. Trust cannot be rebuilt through vision alone. It requires execution, transparency, accountability, and respect for the time and capital of holders. @muneeb @Stacks @alexlmiller

• 
  Maker | Perps & Ownership szn (@Nevergreen911) reported 30 minutes ago

  TL;DR: People who actually brought volume and metrics to GRVT for 3+ years will have to wait up to 6 hours before they can access their tokens. Meanwhile, Binance Alpha users get free $GRVT with no lockups, no vesting, and immediate liquidity. Yeah... another "high-tech, next-gen, top-tier" perp DEX choosing to screw over the community that got them here.

• 
  Slem 🍚 ⛓ (@slem1337) reported 33 minutes ago

  I USED TO THINK POLYMARKET LATENCY ARBITRAGE LOOKED LIKE FREE MONEY Binance moves first. Polymarket reacts a little later. A bot sees the move, buys the mispriced outcome and collects the difference. Simple, right? A new public research release has now tested that idea across 727 million synchronized Polymarket and Binance rows. The researchers matched 2.94 million cross-venue events across 54 Polymarket trading days and found that Polymarket quotes reacted to large Binance moves after a median 347 milliseconds. On paper, that sounds like a huge edge for a trading bot. In practice, it was not. A walk-forward model using 43 different microstructure features still failed to outperform the probability already embedded in Polymarket’s own order book. After the researchers added estimated fees and slippage, the strategy lost money. And this is where building trading bots becomes much more complicated than simply finding a signal. The bot still needs to detect the move, calculate the trade, submit the order, enter the queue and actually get filled before the market reprices. Even when Binance clearly moves first, most of the theoretical edge can disappear during execution. The lag is real. The obvious arbitrage is not. But that does not mean the dataset is useless. It probably means the more interesting opportunity is not predicting whether Bitcoin moves up or down. It may be identifying moments when Polymarket fails to reprice cleanly: • Liquidity disappears after a large Binance move • Spreads suddenly expand • Thin books create temporary dislocations • Prices get stuck near $0.01 or $0.99 • Market makers become overexposed on one side Most Polymarket latency bots are probably not competing over who sees the Binance move first anymore. They are competing over who can execute without giving the entire edge back through spread, slippage and queue position. Seeing the opportunity is easy. Actually getting paid for it is the hard part.

• 
  K1CRYPTO (@SkipSkopSk1p) reported 34 minutes ago

  Even this criminal is chiming in Binance fell big time lol And they block Palestinians from their own money Decentralisation my ***

• 
  BINYAM KIDANE (@Binyamkidane_) reported 36 minutes ago

  @CryptoWizardd @cz_binance @binance is a scam exchange. They should be held accountable for the collapse of FTX, the 10/10 market crash, and these terrible token listings. They’re doing serious damage to the crypto market.

• 
  Troy Root (@TroyxRoot) reported 41 minutes ago

  @ReignEkklesia @BrendanPedersen More like the problem of money laundering to the RNC (and DNC) from foreign governments aided by Coinbase, Binance, Tether, Circle and Anchorage Digital. Audit World Liberty Financial.

• 
  Bittopia (@Bittopia_) reported 41 minutes ago

  @fveswvojk066829 @binance Coverage really is the key. Hopefully more merchants will support it over time.

• 
  Manuel (@Manuel_jero) reported 44 minutes ago

  @Bybit_Official @Alpha_Bybit @BybitAfrica hello, on the 21st of July I accidentally sent 0.00335215 btc from my binance to my bybit BSC BEP20 USDT wallet. I have tried to use the customer care option, asset recovery but the page is not opening. Kindly assist in refunding. Thanks

• 
  MATO✦MΛRS (@matijagav) reported 45 minutes ago

  Dear @cz_binance , There is only ONE real Marscoin, running on its own independent blockchain since 2014. Multiple tokens on BNB Chain are using the Marscoin name, misleading investors and harming the reputation of the original Marscoin project. We ask Binance to review these tokens and help protect legitimate projects from brand misuse and investor confusion. There is only one Marscoin. Since 2014. One blockchain. @marscoinorg

• 
  MR.BULL🦬🐂 (@Mrbullemmy) reported 53 minutes ago

  I just noticed that $STBL is very close to ATL but something in me keeps telling me It will pump later Last year, i was thinking it was gonna get listed on Binance because someone from there is an advisor or so for the team but it didn't happen Now we are in a bear market & price as gone down 96% from ATH. Since it has gone from being a mid cap to a lowcao, it's now back on my watch list Will refer to this by year end !

• 
  Troy Root (@TroyxRoot) reported 55 minutes ago

  @BrendanPedersen More like the problem of money laundering to the RNC (and DNC) from foreign governments aided by Coinbase, Binance, Tether, Circle and Anchorage Digital. Audit World Liberty Financial.

• 
  Huichain (@HuichainP) reported 57 minutes ago

  @cz_binance Hello! Boss, my HCP has been incorrectly flagged in the Binance Wallet. The team has been working on this for several days but hasn't been able to resolve the issue. Please help me. 0x0f10B7af1B9d3A60Ba9d940776364e863979615D Boss, the HCP contract is in good shape. The team needs to attract many users to register on the Binance platform to participate. Please help us out.😭

• 
  shooky (@andrenackt) reported 57 minutes ago

  @binance looks more like keeping traders inside binance than expanding real market access

• 
  Danish Rah (@rah_danish) reported 60 minutes ago

  @BinanceHelpDesk Hello Binance Support, I believe there is an issue with the Merchant Application eligibility page. The section is labeled “Trading History (Lifetime)”, but it shows “Days Since Verification: 20 / ≥120 days.” My Binance account has existed and been verified for approximately 2007 days, as reflected on my P2P profile. The “Lifetime” section should reflect my lifetime account verification history, not 20 days. If the system is intentionally using the date of my most recent KYC update, then the “Lifetime” label is misleading. If it is not intentional, this appears to be a bug. I have attached screenshots showing: Merchant eligibility page displaying 20 days since verification. My P2P profile showing Registered: 2007 Day(s) ago and my lifetime trading statistics. Could you please investigate and clarify whether this is a bug or expected behavior?