Binance 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:

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 4 minutes ago

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

• 
  BeInCrypto (@beincrypto) reported 5 minutes ago

  Binance founder @cz_binance denied rumors of secretly backing meme coins after transferring 400 million spam tokens worth 1.6 million dollars to a burn address. CZ clarified he was simply clearing out digital garbage sent by projects chasing free publicity. On chain data reveals he has erased over 6.24 million dollars in spam assets over the past year.

• 
  Bart (@BartTradesX) reported 12 minutes ago

  In October 2025, similar thing happened in BNB chain when they introduced meme rush on binance which created huge sell off on all BNB memecoins, ruined the whole momentum & marked the top of BNB season. But this time it's different because in October 2025 BTC hit the cycle top of $126k & everything went risk off after that. This time it ruined the momentum yeah & is just going to slow things down but won't mark the top because majors are about to go risk on soon. In my opinion,this is a buying opportunity on your favourite memes.

• 
  Moreblessing DrCrypto (@Dr_Crypto1) reported 13 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

• 
  badgerSATS (@badgersats) reported 14 minutes ago

  @binance @BinanceUkraine BINANACE IS GARBAGE SCAM 9 YEARS OF STEALING WASH TRADE INSIDE TRADE USERS

• 
  Crypto Sat (@cryptosatred) reported 14 minutes ago

  $8 billion recovered for users who made mistakes sending crypto. No other exchange even tracks this number — let alone does it. This is the difference between a platform that treats you as a customer and one that actually treats you as a user worth protecting. 9 years of building trust, not just volume. Happy Birthday Binance 🎂 #BinanceTurns9

• 
  Terry K (@Terrykait) reported 17 minutes ago

  Stablecoins are changing how people use crypto. But what exactly are they? Why are they becoming so popular? A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to keep a stable price. Most are linked to the US Dollar, while others are backed by assets like gold or cryptocurrencies. Their goal is simple: reduce volatility and provide a reliable digital currency. How do they work? Many stablecoins hold cash or government bonds as reserves. Others use crypto collateral or algorithms to maintain their value. This helps them stay close to their target price. Why do traders use stablecoins? They make it easy to move funds without leaving the crypto market. They are also widely used for cross-border transfers, business settlements, and online payments. Fast transactions. Lower fees. Global access. Available 24/7. Are stablecoins completely safe? Not always. Reserve transparency matters. Regulations can change. Smart contract bugs can create risks. Some stablecoins have even lost their peg during market stress. That is why research is essential before choosing one. Always understand how a stablecoin is backed and who manages its reserves. Stablecoins are more than just a trading tool. They are becoming a key part of the digital economy. As adoption grows, they could reshape global payments, decentralized finance, and the way people move money across borders. The future is being built today. #Binance #BinanceAcademy #Learnwithbinance

• 
  dimasta.sol (@_dimasta) reported 18 minutes ago

  @BinancePk I believe Binance has effectively stolen my money. In May, I transferred funds from another crypto exchange to my Binance account. My funds were frozen, and I was told the review would take 10 days. After 10 days, nothing changed. Support then told me to wait 30 more days. After those 30 days, they extended the deadline by another 30 days. Now that period has also passed, and my funds are still frozen with no explanation. I have screenshots of every conversation with Binance Support. UID: 39897529 Case ID: 165532131 Please review my case.

• 
  ZachXBT (@zachxbt) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Nova_life22 @binance @Gate_io Why would you buy a meme coin called “The African Bull” and not think it’s a grift? Sorry no one can help you when your IQ is 0

• 
  RedVine🐵 (@cccby8888) reported 22 minutes ago

  Trade Review | SNDK | #003 Today’s market didn’t have a clear directional bias and was mostly range-bound, so I avoided predicting the move premarket and waited for the US open to confirm direction. SNDK had already rallied significantly during premarket. In an overall bearish environment, I saw this as a negative rather than a positive—it created more room for a downside move. After the open, capital flowed into the market, but price remained stuck in a range instead of trending higher. I stayed bearish because price failed to hold above VWAP and the key moving averages. At the same time, KDJ rolled over from a short-term high. My interpretation was that buyers were unwilling to absorb supply around the 1800 level. I opened my first short around 1800, with 1830 as my thesis invalidation level. The stop wasn’t chosen randomly. If price had broken above 1830, it would have suggested either an upside breakout or a higher consolidation range. In that scenario, the original short thesis would no longer be valid. As price moved lower, I continuously tightened my trailing stop to protect profits: 1830 → 1805 → 1785 (I preferred 1805 over 1810 because it fit the structure better.) One mistake I made was adding to my position around 1772 because of FOMO. That worsened my average entry and increased overall risk. To manage that mistake, I kept the added position on a much tighter stop at 1780, limiting the additional risk. After closing the first trade, I still believed the selling pressure in SNDK hadn’t been fully exhausted. The market conditions weren’t strong enough to support a sustainable move above 1800, so I waited patiently for a second setup instead of forcing another entry. As the market continued consolidating, capital inflows weakened noticeably. Combined with confirmation from KDJ and MACD, I entered a second short around 1774. (In hindsight, 1780 would have been a better entry. I was slightly impatient.) As heavy selling entered the market, I kept trailing my stop lower to lock in profits. Eventually my stop was triggered around 1740, ending the trade. Looking back, when price bounced near 1735, I already felt the rebound was different. However, my execution was too slow, and I was a little overconfident, which delayed my decision to tighten the stop further. ⸻ A few days ago I made a rule for myself: Don’t immediately open a second trade after closing one, whether it’s a win or a loss. Today I intentionally didn’t follow that rule mechanically. Because I realized the real problem isn’t taking a second trade. The real problem is taking a second trade driven by emotion. After closing the first position, I wasn’t excited and I wasn’t chasing profits. I re-evaluated the market. The second trade had: a new thesis, a new market structure, and a new stop-loss plan. That made it an independent trade rather than an emotional continuation of the first one. After closing the second trade, I immediately closed Binance. I had already made what I believed the market was willing to give me today. Beyond that point, my edge was getting smaller. So I ended the trading day.

• 
  Sipa (@SipaAirdrop) reported 27 minutes ago

  @VictorTopDefiG I've the same problem on Binance as well lol

• 
  Snassy.icp (@SnassyIcp) reported 30 minutes ago

  @NebulaOnIC Ok, Fable thought your argument was very strong, but says it found a few holes. I would normally read it until I knew I understood it and could reply in my own words, but I don’t think I’ll be able to do that here without missing a lot, so I’ll just paste it verbatim, with my apologies for the slop. Hole 1: the stables argument is backwards. The latency-arb tax isn't a function of staleness alone — it's staleness × volatility of the true price within the stale window. A sniper profits by hitting your quote when fair value has moved more than your half-spread. On BTC, 1–2 seconds of staleness is real money because BTC moves. On USDC-USDT, the true price moves basis points per day. A 1–2 second stale window on a pair whose fair value drifts 1bp is unexploitable at any spread wide enough to cover fees — there's nothing to snipe. That's precisely why the actual core stable-clearing layer of DeFi, Curve on Ethereum mainnet, quotes 1–4bp on stable pairs with no oracle at all and 12-second blocks — slower than ICP — and its LPs are not bled dry by latency arb in normal times. Thin spreads and slow venues coexist fine exactly where he says they can't, because stables are the least latency-sensitive pairs in existence, not the most. The genuine stables risk is the rare depeg jump (March 2023 USDC), where slow LPs become exit liquidity — but Curve LPs ate that too; it's not an ICP-specific handicap, and the ±2% matching bands cap the single-event bite here. The honest reason MULTI/DEX does no stable-stable flow is simply that it lists one stable. That's a listing decision, not an architectural impossibility. Hole 2: conflating hedging with inventory rebalancing. "MMs cannot instantly rebalance on an external venue" — true for assets (chain finality, as we established), but that's not how MMs hedge. Delta hedging doesn't require moving inventory anywhere: get filled 2 BTC long on MULTI/DEX, short 2 BTC of Binance perps milliseconds later, from capital already sitting on Binance. The hedge is a derivative offset; the slow asset rebalancing happens hours later at leisure, fully hedged throughout. This is exactly how MMs already operate on Ethereum DEXes, where "instant" on-chain anything doesn't exist either. The real friction on MULTI/DEX is narrower than his claim: the 1–2 seconds between your fill and your knowing about it — leg risk on the hedge. That's worth some spread widening versus a 10ms venue, sure. But "massive inventory risk, cannot hedge" describes a market maker who hasn't heard of perpetual futures. Hole 3: the cross-subnet async point doesn't touch this venue's internals. MULTI/DEX is one canister. Books, vault, oracle, margin engine, insurance fund — one actor, one memory, synchronous execution. There is no internal network boundary to reintroduce delay; that's the entire architectural bet, and it's also why "instant liquidations" is a strange item on the impossible-list — liquidations here bypass the book and execute inside the canister at the oracle mark, about as instant as anything on any chain. Where the point does bite is composability with everything outside the canister: cross-canister calls on ICP are async and non-atomic, so Ethereum-style money legos — flash loans threading five protocols in one atomic transaction — genuinely don't exist on ICP. That's the strongest card, and it's real. But look at what it actually implies. MULTI/DEX's answer to non-atomic composability is vertical integration: it internalized the exchange, the money market, the MM, and the insurance layer into one atomic unit precisely because it can't compose them across protocols. The cost is ecosystem openness — it won't be a lego brick other protocols atomically build on. The prize is that everything the legos are usually needed for already happens inside, atomically, with the solvency of the whole stack verifiable from one hash-chained ledger. So the fair verdict on "at best a retail spot swap shop": the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, but a weaker cousin of it survives. This venue will not host HF stable clearing or be an atomic composability hub — mostly because it isn't trying to be either. Its actual bet is different: a full-reserve, provably solvent, self-contained broker for native assets — competing with CEXes on trust, not with Solana on microseconds or Curve on stables. Whether that niche is big enough to matter is a legitimate open question.

• 
  Marlboro Bear (@afraidofwomen51) reported 30 minutes ago

  Anyone here into crypto? I need help figuring out how this binance thing works

• 
  Jami3 (@Jamie77722) reported 33 minutes ago

  @dharamveernliu @MoonbeamNetwork Kraken Binance Bybit Kucoin never support this scam. Other time finañ exit liquity more...

• 
  Ether Wizz (@EtherWizz_) reported 34 minutes ago

  Stablecoins: What They Are, How They Work & The Risks Most People Ignore If you've spent enough time in crypto, you'll eventually realize something interesting: the assets that barely move in price are often the ones that keep the entire market moving. That's exactly what stablecoins do. When I started trading, I treated stablecoins as nothing more than a place to park profits. Over time, especially during high-volatility days and market wide panic, I realized they're the rails that connect almost everything in crypto from trading and DeFi to cross border payments. A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, usually around $1. But that stability doesn't happen by magic. It depends on the system behind it. Some stablecoins are backed by cash and short term U.S. Treasury bills held in reserve. Others are backed by excess crypto collateral locked on chain. A few have tried maintaining their peg through algorithms alone, and history has shown that this approach can fail dramatically when market confidence disappears. That's why I never put every stablecoin in the same category. A $1 price doesn't always mean the same level of safety. For traders, stablecoins are the fastest way to move between positions without converting back to a bank account. They're also the backbone of liquidity on most exchanges, making it easier to enter and exit markets in seconds instead of waiting on traditional banking rails. Beyond trading, they've become one of crypto's most practical tools. People use them to send money across borders, settle payments 24/7, earn yield in DeFi, and protect purchasing power in regions where local currencies are unstable. But stable should never be confused with risk free. The biggest risks aren't always obvious. Reserve quality matters. Transparency matters. Smart contract security matters. Regulation matters. And above all, confidence matters. Once people lose trust in the system supporting a stablecoin, maintaining its peg becomes much harder. One event changed how I look at stablecoins forever: the collapse of algorithmic models proved that a peg is only as strong as the mechanism defending it. Since then, I've stopped asking, Is it trading at $1? and started asking, What keeps it at $1? Before holding any stablecoin, I always check four things: - Who issues it? - What backs it? - How transparent are the reserves? - Has it remained resilient during periods of market stress? Stablecoins may never generate the excitement of a 10x token, but they're one of the most important innovations in this industry. Every day, billions of dollars move through them because they solve a real problem: transferring value quickly, globally and around the clock. The biggest lesson I've learned is simple: Don't trust a stablecoin because it's worth $1. Trust it because you understand what keeps it there. #Binance #LearnWithBinance