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	4 days ago
Itu	Website	10 days ago
Seattle	Website	10 days ago
Nice	Mobile App	20 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:

• 
  BYS YSR (@BYS94454600) reported 52 seconds ago

  @Jia_Lilly01 @binance Can you help me?

• 
  sea₿adger (@seabadger5) reported 3 minutes ago

  @cantonmeow So that means Binance is going to make Bitcoin **** the bed.

• 
  reddy (@yadavreddyj) reported 7 minutes ago

  @cz_binance @binance Best in service never fails

• 
  Windra Putra (@windraputra18) reported 8 minutes ago

  @binance My one idea : Build a "Proof of Contribution" system Reward bStocks for helping the community, not just trading. Every guide, scam report, helpful reply, or educational post build a reputation that unlock beta access, exclusive events, and community influence. #Binance #bStocks

• 
  J Feng 🌕 (@stablefeng) reported 12 minutes ago

  This is not an abstract theoretical debate. It is a question of understanding basic economics and what actually happened on Terra Classic. You said: “Tax forces transactions off-chain.” A tax can affect the cost of certain high-frequency trades, arbitrage and market-making activity. But transactions do not happen simply because a tax is low. People transact because they have a reason to transact: useful applications, demand, liquidity, arbitrage opportunities or the possibility of earning a profit. Nobody wakes up and makes transactions for no reason simply because the tax is lower. The fundamental reason Terra Classic lacks on-chain volume is that we do not currently have enough meaningful applications, profitable opportunities or products that people genuinely want to use. Removing the tax does not automatically create any of those things. You then said: “It’s cheaper to trade LUNC on Binance.” Trade it for what purpose? Short-term traders and speculators already use centralized exchanges because that is where the liquidity and order books are. They are buying and selling LUNC based on price movements. That is not the same thing as genuine on-chain economic activity. People do not move on-chain simply to trade for the sake of trading. They move on-chain when there is something useful or profitable to do there. You also said: “There is no money validating the chain unless you’re in the top three.” That is simply not true. Burrito Node is currently around 13th in voting power. It earns approximately $150 per month in LUNC and USTC. I do not sell those rewards; I compound them because I view them as a long-term investment. Whether a validator is profitable depends on delegation, commission, operating costs, token value and overall network activity. It has no direct connection to whether the burn tax exists. You then said: “People are losing interest as compounding losses is not the best business model.” Of course people lose interest when an asset keeps falling and they are losing money. That is true throughout crypto and traditional markets. But again, that does not prove that the burn tax caused those losses. Low prices, weak demand, limited development and the absence of useful products are much larger issues than the transaction tax. Finally, you said: “We have had the tax for five years.” No, we have not. The original 1.2% burn proposal was approved in 2022, and the tax was implemented on-chain on September 21, 2022. That is not five years. I have been part of Terra Classic since the chain was created after the collapse. I remember every stage of its history. After the collapse, the chain was effectively abandoned and the community was in chaos. Community developers and contributors, including Edward Kim, Zaradar and others associated with Terra Rebels, worked with validators to restore and upgrade the chain. The recovery work included both implementing the community-approved 1.2% burn mechanism and re-enabling delegation and staking. These proposals gave validators, developers and the wider community a common objective at a time when the chain had almost no direction. The burn movement helped reunite the community. It encouraged validators to coordinate upgrades, brought holders back on-chain, restored public attention and helped attract support from major exchanges. Binance later began burning the trading fees generated from its LUNC spot and margin pairs. You can debate whether 1.2% was the ideal rate. You can propose reducing it, changing it or replacing it with a better mechanism. Governance exists precisely for that reason. But rewriting the chain’s history and blaming every current problem on the burn tax is not a serious analysis. Terra Classic does need more on-chain volume. But volume comes from utility, applications, liquidity and opportunities—not merely from reducing a tax and hoping people begin making meaningless transactions. Build something people want to use, and transactions will follow.

• 
  Satoshi Arc (@CryptoFocusYT) reported 13 minutes ago

  Three big market events are happening today. CPI at 8:30. Big bank earnings before the market opens. And the new Fed Chair’s first testimony later in the morning. Everyone is busy talking about whether the market will go up or down. I was looking at something different. Where is the actual trading happening? So I opened four platforms and compared the 24-hour trading volume for tokenized $NVDA. The numbers keep changing throughout the day, so I recorded the live volume in my video instead of posting a static screenshot. An earlier comparison showed rToken at around $320M in 24-hour volume, while Binance was around $1.93M, Gate around $68K, and MEXC around $64K. That’s why I wanted to check the live numbers myself, and you can see the current volumes in my video No surprise that the gap works out to around 166× compared to Binance. For me, this matters more on a day like today. When CPI, bank earnings and Fed comments all land within a couple of hours, trading activity naturally picks up. And when more people are trading, I want to be on the platform where the volume is already there, not hoping liquidity shows up later. From what I’ve learned, Bitget rToken sources its liquidity from Nasdaq and NYSE through licensed brokers, which probably explains why the numbers look so different. I always prefer checking the data myself instead of trusting screenshots or marketing posts. It literally took me a few minutes to open the same stock on four platforms and compare the volume. The numbers spoke for themselves.

• 
  Snassy.icp (@SnassyIcp) reported 13 minutes ago

  The more I discuss Multidex with Fable the more bullish I get. As always NFA, not recommending investments, and I’m no financial expert. But here’s the picture that is starting to dawn on me, after intense debates with Fable, and also with @NebulaOnIC : Multidex is not made to attract the standard DeFi liquidity in the form of ”mercenary” Market Makers (MMs) who go wherever the ”bribes” (subsidies, free tokens, other advantages) and the MEV opportunities are greatest. It’s built to attract a more slow moving, but potentially much larger, capital base. Multidex is for patient capital, that wants to park their BTC and USD somewhere safe with reasonable yield for long term. They don’t want to have to hop around between Binance Chain one day, Solana the next, then Robinhood-chain, just to follow the crowd that keeps jumping ship as soon as the subsidies they came for run out, all for a lot more work and risk but not that much greater yield, especially for larger positions. To this crowd, if Multidex can provide similar yield at lower counterparty risk than a CEX, it becomes interesting. It may take a while, such capital moves slowly and wants to see a lot of proof, but the huge upside is that it’s real - not pumped by subsidies. This capital once it moves in isn’t quick to move out again as soon as subsidies end. @dominic_w has a long record of stating he does not want to pump ICP price with the help of mercenary markets makers. That means the MMs that only come for the subsidies and leave when they end, turning the token/project into another pump and dump. Some thought he must have changed his tune on such MMs and DeFi with Multidex. But that doesn’t seem the case. Instead he’s built what looks like a dream machine for non-mercenary, serious capital. In a nutshell, Multidex tries to replace every extractive middle man in the market with machines that fulfill the same role but at minimal profit. What profit it does accrue for itself (what’s not shared with liquidity providers) goes to keeping the exchange in gas, and any surplus above that goes to the network and NNS DAO that hosts it by burning ICP. By creating a sophisticated and atomic trading machine with minimal extraction opportunities, and where all parked capital has the same market making conditions via the AMM Vault, it becomes a serious venue for traders to get the best deals and for non-mercenary, long term capital to rest safely and at potentially quite decent yield. Multidex will need to prove several things. Some will be able to be verified in the play run with play money - that mechanisms like liquidations work like they should, that everything is transparent, that the oracle lag is acceptable and doesn’t lead to big losses in times of volatility. But many things can only be proven once play time is over, with real capital. HFT bots, that could be a problem (in theory not, according to Fable, in practice…we’ll see once real money is on the line) won’t bother trading for play money. It’s likely that capital, if it comes, will come slowly. First see that ”X” amount seems to rest safely, then deploy a little more, proving the protocol can handle more, and so on. This is similar to how capital enters BTC - the more value the protocol can handle without getting hacked (by now +$1T) the more it is safe to deploy. But the flip side is the capital also leaves slowly - if it leaves at all. That’s how I like it. Solid, long term, real execution creating real values as the moat. This is how Dom and Dfinity builds. Multidex makes total sense in this perspective. Multidex will need to be bootstrapped, seeded with initial liquidity. Someone has to be first out on the dance floor and take the risk to prove the machine. I don’t necessarily expect this will happen on its own. Dfinity will presumably have to provide this seed liquidity. But it would make sense for them to do so: if Multidex is successful it would provide returns on their investment and potentially improve ICP price, making their holdings more valuable. Long term, much of the credibility will have to come from a much more decentralized liquidity, but to prove the engine it will work fine and can benefit Dfinity and all ICP holders. NNS stakers gain control over its first (potentially) profitable business and goes from just network governance to potentially something even more interesting. There’s a lot I still have to understand, and rely on Fable’s patient explanations for. But the more I understand, the more it all comes together and the more brilliant it seems. I will post more where I try to go into more detail how and why, but this is the general outline of a picture that is becoming more clear by the minute. And, pertinently, Fable seems very enthusiastic and thinks the whole puzzle makes a lot of sense, so there’s that. But the bottom line is Multidex is making me more bullish on ICP than I have been in a long time, it perfectly showcases ICP’s advantages because it really couldn’t be built anywhere else, not with all the pieces coming together into such a coherent whole. It is built to attract much bigger and more serious capital than the ”crypto casino”, and if it gains volume it will lead to not just gas being burned but ICP being burned as well - this fact, and that Multidex doesn’t have its own token (beyond ICP) seems to be one of the things that impresses Fable the most. In short, alien tech again and Dom is ahead of everyone as per usual.

• 
  🇦🇪🦅 (@rahcniehn) reported 14 minutes ago

  @binance the piece of **** that owns binance is the reason crypto went to ****. **** you @cz_binance

• 
  laoonn (@shiandy6) reported 16 minutes ago

  I've been using StandX for a while now and here's what actually caught me off guard:My margin earns yield while I trade. Not after. While.DUSD isn't just a stablecoin you hold — it's the collateral layer underneath everything. Every position I open, the margin is already working. No staking. No extra steps.The UI feels like watching a poker table. You see the pot, the players, the odds — all in one glance. Built by the team that founded Binance Futures, and it shows. No VCs. No committee listings. SIP-5 just made markets permissionless.This is what a perps DEX should feel like. @StandX_Official

• 
  Bonuscasino 365 (@bonus_casino365) reported 20 minutes ago

  @zachxbt @binance @Gate_io This dump pattern matches how the LAB team quietly offloads allocations through proxies. The 81.5M LAB still parked at those three Aster addresses is the next leg down.

• 
  Fred Velez (@Fredvelezcrypto) reported 22 minutes ago

  @Gimlisaberi Yes, this was just binance because I clicked on it and it wasn’t binance alpha either. It was obviously just an error on my cmc page. Because when I clicked refresh it went away. Sadly.

• 
  I disagree (@XRP_is_Gold) reported 23 minutes ago

  @SenLummis Ya I just got robbed blind by a Binance customer with kyc and they’re currently stealing from 100’s of accounts

• 
  CoinGirl (@btcMoongirl) reported 25 minutes ago

  @TheChainInsider @binance The way Binance handles some issues has seriously damaged my trust in the platform.

• 
  havomartinez (@HavoMartinez) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Skaivii @coinbase @binance yeah but how will binance LP help at this stage? there was LP campaign on pancakeswap during last pump.... we dont need binance

• 
  Khalid Alzandani (@KAlzandani) reported 31 minutes ago

  @BinanceHelpDesk @BinanceWallet @binance They didn't say anything all they said I already posted it which is "They will not contact with the team" And we all want to know why?What the purpose of Binance then if it can't contact with the team of H to tell them why they didn't give us our compensation while you support it

• 
  Kevin Deason (@kldeason) reported 32 minutes ago

  @binance **** off with your stupid facial verification bullshit

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 35 minutes ago

  @DeepakSikaria63 binance delisting plus the aUSD disaster did permanent damage. down 99.99% from ATH, continuing the long decline

• 
  me (@fthagovernment) reported 35 minutes ago

  @Eze_Wilberforce @binance When your paid you have to support the most manipulative exchange in the space disgusting really

• 
  Rajesh kumar Kushawaha (@Rajesh07462) reported 37 minutes ago

  @blockdagnetwork Guys Report and block these scammer from every social media platform and Binance live also.... These scammer don't care about your feelings..... REPORT AND BLOCK

• 
  CoCo❕ (@CoCoCookerr) reported 41 minutes ago

  @RuneCrypto_ Wtf is binance wallet perps ive never heard

• 
  Ucaird (@Ucaird_zenith) reported 42 minutes ago

  @0xnguyenkien You think Binance Alpha is the problem now?

• 
  Polikron 🫐 (@Polikronek) reported 42 minutes ago

  3/8 Binance still has huge volume, but regulatory issues have hurt it in many regions. Fees only become truly competitive if you hold a lot of BNB. Coinbase is safe and beginner-friendly, but the high fees make it one of the most expensive options for active trading.

• 
  Moreblessing DrCrypto (@Dr_Crypto1) reported 44 minutes ago

  Conclusion The SUNUSI compromise was a phishing and approval exploit, not a private key breach and not, on the current evidence, an inside job. The dev wallet interacted with a malicious contract disguised as a burn tool, unknowingly granted it Permanent Delegate authority, and the attacker used that access to drain and liquidate over $270,000 in tokens, more than 48% of the project's supply. Permanent Delegate is a legitimate Solana feature. The failure was not in the technology, but in the interaction with a contract that should never have been trusted. That said, responsibility does not sit entirely with the attacker. Burning a significant portion of a project's supply is a serious, irreversible action, and it should never have been executed through an unverified third-party tool found online. There was no due diligence performed on solanaburner. com, no verification of the contract behind it, and no consultation with a trusted or established party before approving a transaction that carried the entire project's treasury allocation. A single check against the contract's deployment history would have shown it was created just days earlier. This was avoidable, and the team must own that failure alongside the loss. What makes this case worth studying is how ordinary the entry point was. A burn tool. A single approval. That is all it took. As token extensions become more common on Solana, so too will the ways they can be turned against unsuspecting users through malicious contracts. A wallet does not need to be hacked in the traditional sense to be emptied. It only needs to sign the wrong transaction. The trail does not end here. Because the operation was funded through Binance, there may be KYC data behind that withdrawal capable of identifying the individual responsible, and we would strongly encourage the SUNUSI team to pursue that avenue with the relevant authorities rather than remain silent. For the wider community, this is a reminder that verification has to come before interaction, not after. The blockchain has told us exactly what happened here. The only thing missing now is a response. The SMC Research Team will continue monitoring the attacker's wallet for any movement of the remaining funds, and we will update this report as further information comes to light. CC: @SMCResearchers Addon: If you ever think Sunusi will rug his own project at $300k MCap after building his name and reputation for years just for $100k then you owe him an apology

• 
  Satoshi Arc (@CryptoFocusYT) reported 44 minutes ago

  Three big market events are happening today. CPI at 8:30. Big bank earnings before the market opens. And the new Fed Chair’s first testimony later in the morning. Everyone is busy talking about whether the market will go up or down. I was looking at something different. Where is the actual trading happening? So I opened four platforms and compared the 24-hour trading volume for tokenized $NVDA. The numbers keep changing throughout the day, so I recorded the live volume in my video instead of posting a static screenshot. One thing didn’t really change though. Based on Bitget’s recorded comparison: • rToken has around 166× more 24-hour trading volume than Binance bStock. • Around 4,706× more than Gate xStock. • Around 5,000× more than Ondo on MEXC. • Overall, around 155× more trading volume than all three competitors combined. You can see the current live volumes in my recording. For me, this matters more on a day like today. When CPI, bank earnings and Fed comments all land within a couple of hours, trading activity naturally picks up. And when more people are trading, I want to be on the platform where the volume is already there, not hoping liquidity shows up later. From what I’ve learned, Bitget rToken sources its liquidity from Nasdaq and NYSE through licensed brokers, which probably explains why the numbers look so different. I always prefer checking the data myself instead of trusting screenshots or marketing posts. It literally took me a few minutes to open the same stock on four platforms and compare the volume. The numbers spoke for themselves.

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 48 minutes ago

  @pojokjeremi listings on robinhood/binance/coinbase are solid but that $19m drain last week through governance exploit is rough. down 93% from ath, twice drained according to reports. if you're playing memes it has staying power vs most, but that governance risk just showed itself

• 
  unur48❖❖ (@unur481515) reported 49 minutes ago

  Dear @Binance, my account was unexpectedly restricted from participating in campaigns due to an alleged Terms of Use violation. I believe this may be a mistake. I have always tried to follow the rules and would greatly appreciate it if my case could be reviewed. Thank you for your time and support. 🙏💛 UID: 740869704 #Binance #BinanceSupport #Crypto

• 
  CRYPTONIAN (@CRYPTONIAN_OG) reported 51 minutes ago

  @OverkillTrading Binance is doing a lot of spot buying ill wait until the heat dies down then load up. I want aero to dunk so i can unload but its so resilient lol

• 
  Robert fails (@Roberto9green) reported 52 minutes ago

  @Romer i dont want to wagger if i won i will taje it to my binance, exodus wallet i am suffering a lot this could realky help me now faith in god @Romer @creativebond007

• 
  crypto Man (@ibrahim43181418) reported 54 minutes ago

  @hokanewscom $CEX is live. Cool idea, one problem - trenchers dump every bag the second it lands. So we sent supply to the wallets of Binance, OKX, Bybit, Bitget, Kraken, MEXC and other CEXes. they hold it now. CA: 0xc4892b6221788d4ee230b47a858fdad6d3837777

• 
  Larissa Community (@LarissaBlo1833) reported 57 minutes ago

  @binance The pace of innovation hasn t slowed down, and it feels like we re still just getting started