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	20 days ago
Itu	Website	26 days ago
Seattle	Website	26 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:

• 
  Golfandtennis (@lunchater21) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Defi_world @Greenpeace06_09 He doesn’t know ****. Claims he discovered binance recovery plan hahah. Guy is so full of hopium just like @ayewaken ! These guys are the clowns of $lunc

• 
  ALPHA (@CKRcrypto) reported 10 minutes ago

  @czbinanceprd follow you with great interest. It is amazing that you are the founder of an exchange like Binance and that it provides services accessible in every corner of the world today. You are one of the first names that come to mind when people think of a "Bull" market in the crypto space. Recently, we have been having a hard time making sense of your comments and posts, and understanding what is happening behind the scenes. There are armed conflicts all over the world, and wars never end. If the rally is going to happen at a time when nobody knows or expects it, is this even possible in such an environment? Assets are just flooding the market with supply. Even projects with actual use cases fail to inspire confidence. I think we have all understood the importance of digital currency by now. But it feels like a gambling system where transactions are untraceable, and no one can claim any legal rights. I want to believe that this is not the case. I suspect that every post you make is a FOMO call and that you only care about yourself. You are a billionaire; when prices drop, you can make stronger purchases. But as altcoin investors with only $1,000 in hand, we cannot do that. Do whatever needs to be done. And I invite you to support the EIGEN coin. You are a powerhouse, and you should reflect this strength.

• 
  Greenland (@dmitrij48544) reported 12 minutes ago

  Who is in favor of @MilliCoinSeiIt was released on Binance and other exchanges in the coming Weeks. I invite everyone to support this project by making a repost and putting likes.

• 
  Cryptrix Labs (@CryptrixLabs) reported 17 minutes ago

  ZAMA is on the radar, not in play — the setup needs a 4-hour close back above $0.0617 with real volume before it earns another look. Right now the picture leans the wrong way. On the 4-hour chart, momentum just rolled over after a failed attempt higher. Buyers tried twice to push into $0.0647 and got rejected both times, leaving a textbook double-top on the 1-hour and a subtle warning underneath: price made a higher high, but the underlying strength that drives moves didn't follow. Price is also trading below the average cost paid by the last two waves of buyers, around $0.0613. That means most of the recent longs are underwater — and underwater buyers tend to sell into bounces to get out flat, which caps upside. The reward-to-risk here is upside down. The nearest ceiling sits at $0.0605, less than 1% above current price, while the nearest real floor is far below. Very little room to run, a lot of room to fail. The broader tape isn't helping either: Bitcoin and Ethereum are both soft on the 4-hour, the dollar is bid (money moving to safety), and a large forced-selling event just swept through this exact price zone. The 15-minute bounce is real but isolated, and it's happening on below-average volume — a small pocket of buying, not a shift in trend. Too many things point down at once. If ZAMA reclaims $0.0617 on a strong 4-hour close and Bitcoin turns with it, the bearish read is wrong and this one earns another look. Until then, watch — don't chase. — 📡 On the Radar · $ZAMA · Available on Binance

• 
  Backtesting Arena (@SifuBacktest) reported 18 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.

• 
  °Dave 〽️ (@CrypttraderDave) reported 23 minutes ago

  @cz_binance Using Binance since 2018 (9 years) No issues, No Breakin, No Fraud don't care what anyone say; I'm locked in with #Binance

• 
  G@G@ (@cryptiogaga) reported 24 minutes ago

  5/ Binance Prepares for BNB Upgrade Binance announced support for the $BNB Smart Chain network upgrade and hard fork. Deposits and withdrawals on BEP20 will be suspended on July 30 at 05:55 UTC for about one hour of maintenance.

• 
  Fleetz.btc 🟧 | $DOG | $STX | Bitcoin Pepe 🧡 (@Fleetz_) reported 27 minutes ago

  @muneeb Fix the calls, break the comms, Binance yadayada! LFG🔥

• 
  Swapiz (@swapizofficial) reported 28 minutes ago

  Lorenzo Valente of ARK Invest says crypto is in its biggest consolidation in history as weak projects exit. He calls it "extremely bullish for the space." Meanwhile, Binance expanded its bStocks lineup with 10 new tokenized stock pairs on Binance Spot, including Apple, Amazon, Goldman Sachs, and PayPal. Bitcoin price (bitcoin:native ) remained trapped near $64,600 today as renewed US-Iran fighting, a hawkish Federal Reserve, and another CLARITY Act delay prevented buyers from extending the recovery. Ethereum (ethereum:native ) is clinging to support near $1,800 as rising leverage, crowded longs, and persistent U.S. spot ETF outflows deepen downside risks for the second-largest cryptocurrency.

• 
  Gerçek Muhafızı (@Jj1343Jennings) reported 28 minutes ago

  @MeganXBT The withdrawal issue involving $0.42 is worth watching, but the post does not establish wrongdoing by Binance.

• 
  Christopher Costa (@Dyer_Vat) reported 29 minutes ago

  Not gonna lie, Binance quietly rerouting law enforcement requests through slow gov channels smells off. But honestly? Compliance friction won't stop crypto's momentum, might even push more transparent players to shine. Bullish long-term. Am I coping? #Binance

• 
  Shaheb Khan (@shahinhasan009) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Jia_Lilly01 728590691 binance id Please give me sister I always support you

• 
  SKEEEV (@SKEEEV_ETH) reported 32 minutes ago

  Hey Binance team — quick question. Today the @GiggleAcademy charity wallet moved 2% of the $MAME supply, around $78K, to another address and sold it. Was the wallet compromised, or was this an official sale for charity? If it’s official, can we get some transparency on where the funds are going? The community wants to support charity and make BSC better. @heyibinance @cz_binance

• 
  LuncCommunity.com | 0% Fee & USTC Airdrops (@L_U_N_C) reported 37 minutes ago

  $LUNC Proposal #12223 - PART 2 Mr Diamondhandz the LUNCLIVE Validator appears to continue misleading the $LUNC community again to promote his own projects. A project that taxes its own transactions at the exact rate he calls “stupid” for LUNC. Mr Diamondhandz, told the community: “Even CZ knows a 1.5% LUNtax is stupid.” CZ never said that.👇 CZ’s comments were from September 2022 and concerned whether Binance should add an extra 1.2% charge to every LUNC trade inside Binance. They were not about Proposal #12223. They were not about a 1.5% Terra Classic on-chain tax. Appears that LUNCLIVE Validator doesn't understand the difference. There were two separate issues in 2022. First, Terra Classic’s 1.2% on-chain tax. Binance confirmed that the network tax would apply to deposits and withdrawals, while spot and margin trading inside Binance would not be affected. Binance accepted the on-chain tax and adjusted its systems. Second, people wanted Binance to copy that 1.2% charge onto every LUNC trade inside its own exchange. That is what CZ was discussing. His blog opens with: “Will Binance support the LUNC burn of 1.2% for every trade on Binance?” The section is titled: “Taxes on Centralized Exchanges.” CZ’s concern was that if Binance charged an extra 1.2% while competing exchanges did not, traders would simply leave Binance and trade somewhere cheaper. He was talking about Binance customers, Binance order books and Binance competitors. He was not telling Terra Classic what tax rate it should set on-chain. CZ even proposed an opt-in system and linked an earlier statement saying the project needed to implement the tax on-chain first. That is exactly what Proposal #12223 is about. It raises Terra Classic’s on-chain tax from 0.5% to 1.5%. It does not add a 1.5% charge to every trade inside Binance. Binance later chose to burn part of the LUNC trading fees it already collected without increasing normal user trading fees. He opposed Binance charging its users an extra 1.2% while competing exchanges charged nothing. Taking that position and rewriting it as: “CZ thinks Terra Classic’s 1.5% on-chain tax is stupid” is not quoting CZ, It is putting words in his mouth. Now look 👇 Mr Diamondhandz owns LUNCLIVE Node. WESO’s own litepaper lists him as its Public Relations spokesperson. That same litepaper states: “WESO imposes a 1.5% swapping tax on all transactions.” It describes that tax as funding project initiatives and maintaining: “Healthy market dynamics.” WESO’s original exit tax started at 20.5%. So when WESO charges 1.5%, it is called healthy market dynamics. When Terra Classic proposes 1.5%, WESO’s owenerwcalls it stupid. 1.5% for WESO: Healthy. 1.5% for $LUNC Stupid? @Allnodes @DutchLunc_Val Read the original sources👇 Check the dates👇 Follow the incentives👇

• 
  Alastar (@AlastarTrades) reported 39 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

• 
  Yehoshua Zion (@YehoshuaZion) reported 39 minutes ago

  @Yasmeen07765101 consistent schedules help users avoid emotional timing mistakes through binance

• 
  👀 🐂🀄️ (@I4NFTS) reported 43 minutes ago

  So now we’ve had crime on Robinhood with $pipedog Crime on Binance (king of crime) with $MarsCoin And yet @solana stills adds zero help to push anything on their chain People are degenerates and constantly add most volume on low caps on pump but if it weren’t for that I really wish solana would just lose a massive share of meme volume to the people who actually care to address them and push them

• 
  倦鸟 (@juanniao87) reported 44 minutes ago

  @coringtonite buy bitcoin at binance withdraw btc by lighting scan the QR code address on site withdraw in minutes thank me later

• 
  ALPHA (@CKRcrypto) reported 44 minutes ago

  @czbinanceprd follow you with great interest. It is amazing that you are the founder of an exchange like Binance and that it provides services accessible in every corner of the world today. You are one of the first names that come to mind when people think of a "Bull" market in the crypto space. Recently, we have been having a hard time making sense of your comments and posts, and understanding what is happening behind the scenes. There are armed conflicts all over the world, and wars never end. If the rally is going to happen at a time when nobody knows or expects it, is this even possible in such an environment? Assets are just flooding the market with supply. Even projects with actual use cases fail to inspire confidence. I think we have all understood the importance of digital currency by now. But it feels like a gambling system where transactions are untraceable, and no one can claim any legal rights. I want to believe that this is not the case. I suspect that every post you make is a FOMO call and that you only care about yourself. You are a billionaire; when prices drop, you can make stronger purchases. But as altcoin investors with only $1,000 in hand, we cannot do that. Do whatever needs to be done. And I invite you to support the EIGEN coin. You are a powerhouse, and you should reflect this strength.

• 
  Max Gas (@aqualanga) reported 45 minutes ago

  $ESP Espresso squeezed to +18% about four days ago, funding stayed brutal through the whole move, then it snapped back hard on 5x volume. Now shorts are paying 0.77% an hour to bet against a coin that just ripped 34% on Binance, and this time the crowd doubled down instead of learning: long/short flipped from 52/48 to 34/66 while OI went from bleeding out to $769K piling back in over the last hour. $8.1M book, losing side burning roughly $191K a day just to hold the line, and BTC's parked at +0.2% while ESP runs its own script on Binance and Bybit both. Bigger extreme than last time, same crowd on the wrong side of it. Stretched this far, it breaks one way hard. NFA

• 
  kioto (@0xkioto) reported 46 minutes ago

  Back from vacation with another play Honestly this isn’t an underdog play and it’s talked widely on the TL but I think people don't realize the narrative behind $MARSCOIN Marscoin was discussed by elon musk and cz in a tweet in 2021. CZ suggested to launch this coin and elon agreed. CZ said he will list it if it has some utility. CZ is the 17th richest person on earth. Today he quoted a tweet saying he will be buying some memes over the next weeks. The second quote was to an account named "Mars 🟧". 4 hours before Marscoin was listed on binance alpha. Nothing of this is a coincidence. We have seen CZ publicly buy three coins. (afaik) aster (7B ath) tst (500M ath) mubarak (220M ath) CZ is well aware of Vlads actions. Softshilling memes, following projects etc. He saw how well it worked but realized that rh cooled down because no coins were listed yet. Thats his chance to regain momentum for his chain. He can list Marscoin and people will learn to dream again. Marscoin is also paired with SPCX which makes it a RWA pair. Binance is pivoting to RWAs recently and wants them to take off. There is even a dedicated page to "Stock memes" that marscoin leads. The coin does exactly that and revives meme culture on their chain at the same time. Thats another incentive for them to list it / buy it / talk about it.

• 
  YogaInMyLivingRoom (@YogaLivingRoom) reported 48 minutes ago

  @VegasMorph I know CZ/Binance suggests 0.5% tax but I don't trust them. I wouldn't be surprise if Binance & CZ are part of the CCP and controlled by the WEF. They really want to keep LUN suppressed. If they really support LUNC then why is the Oracle pool empty.

• 
  万联welinkBTC(🦄,🦄) | 🔶 逍遥游版 (@fly_welinkBTC) reported 49 minutes ago

  BTC's return to 64k is just a correction; it hasn't truly broken through yet! BTC's recovery above 64k is more like a correction within a range than a valid breakout, and it doesn't signal a return to risk-on sentiment in the entire crypto market. BTC is still in the late stage of recovery, not in a decisive breakout phase. The recent surge in 64k shares was mainly driven by short-term liquidity and short-selling pressure, rather than by sustained buying interest in the spot market. Risk appetite has stabilized around BTC, but altcoins haven't really started to expand yet. ETF demand has cooled down, profit margins are limited, the derivatives structure is relatively balanced, and the risk of chasing the rally is high. The key in the next few weeks will be whether BTC can hold steady between 65.4k and 66.8k without incurring too much leverage risk. BTC has climbed back above $64,000, currently trading at around $64,062, leaving some room for trading, but this alone doesn't indicate the market has entered a new phase. BTC is currently more like digesting previous pressure: while the past 30 days have been positive, the price hasn't yet surpassed the recent high of $66,800. Derivatives are only slightly bullish, ETF demand is cooling, and on-chain profitability is not high. Risk appetite is stabilizing, not expanding. 64k is more like a liquidity pulse than a trend reversal. Round numbers easily trigger algorithmic orders, stop-loss orders, and headline-driven trades, but they don't inherently create sustained buying pressure. At the time of the alert, BTC's 1-day trading range was roughly $63.5k–$64.6k, while the upper limit of the 30-day range was still capped by $66.8k. Structurally, this appears more like a range-bound correction than a confirmed upward expansion. The claim in the market that "BTC has reclaimed a key psychological level" is largely noise. Psychological price levels only truly matter in two situations: Attracting stable spot buying interest to enter the market; This triggers a sustainable chain reaction of leverage. Current evidence supports a short-term liquidity reaction rather than a broad consensus. The market still views BTC as the "least bad" option among crypto assets: there is sufficient demand to absorb pullbacks, but not enough to push the entire market into a risk-on state. Fund flows do not support chasing the rise. There was no frenzy in the derivatives market. BTC futures open interest was approximately $47.4 billion, with a slightly positive funding rate of about 0.007%, and the long/short ratio was nearly balanced at about 1.03. Binance liquidation data showed that short positions were liquidated at a higher rate than long positions, consistent with a short squeeze explanation. However, 24-hour futures trading volume was declining, indicating that this market movement was not driven by continued leverage expansion. The spot market's fund flows are more complex. BTC ETFs saw strong inflows earlier this month, but have experienced a net outflow of approximately $526 million over the last four settled trading days. On-chain, exchange reserves have decreased by approximately 12,400 BTC so far this month, and the net inflow in both directions indicates that supply hasn't flooded trading platforms. This provides support for the price, but with SOPR around 0.996, MVRV around 1.21, and NUPL around 0.17, it suggests that holders haven't entered a state of aggressive profit-taking. This is more like a correction after accumulation than a distribution at the end of a cycle or an exuberant breakout. The market is undervalued and undergoing a period of consolidation; overvalued markets are breaking out directly. I'm more inclined to view this as a BTC-led consolidation phase, while retaining the risk of upward squeeze, rather than betting on a full-blown beta expansion. BTC may continue to outperform altcoins as it acts as a liquidity reservoir and collateral anchor. However, this doesn't mean a healthy altcoin cycle has begun. If BTC's market share continues to rise while it's trending upwards, high-beta altcoins, memes, and less liquid AI/gaming assets are still prone to false breakouts. Over the next 1–4 weeks, I will be closely monitoring the following: Only when BTC recovers and stabilizes above the $65.4k–$66.8k supply zone should we consider increasing our risk exposure. Do not chase after altcoins until ETF fund flows turn positive and SOPR returns above 1. If funding rates rise above 0.01% and OI (Online Investment) increases in tandem, this should be considered a vulnerability rather than a trend confirmation. If the price recovers to $64,000 but then falls below $63,500, the bullish assumption should be abandoned. The point of non-consensus is simple: panic at the high level of 20 is not enough to prompt people to short BTC, but it's also not enough to justify "buying everything." In this market situation, BTC can continue to grind higher, while other crypto assets continue to lose relative value. Currently, BTC is still in the late stage of accumulation and repair with neutral risk, and the breakout has not been confirmed. It is not too early for traders to buy now, and it is too late to chase the price. The real advantage lies with active traders and long-term holders with low leverage who can patiently wait for confirmation at 65.4k-66.8k. High-beta buying in altcoins is not dominant.

• 
  milly.hl (@milly_rock7) reported 50 minutes ago

  @CredibleCrypto @massdotmoney @HyperliquidX do they support withdrawals from cexs outside the us or is it mostly coinbase and binance for now?

• 
  Bob (@blockchainbob) reported 51 minutes ago

  HOLY SHEEEEEEEEEEET 😱 Binance just lit the boosters on our $MARSCOIN bags and we didn’t go to the moon, we went straight to MARS !!! From $300K → $28M Ninety-four. *******. X They just listed $MARSCOIN on Binance Alpha and dropped the fattest crime candle we’ve seen all year I warned y’all this wasn’t a play to fade I pushed it, doubled down and I kept telling everyone to ape in. Some listened Some faded Some are buying the candle now To everyone who rode this with me. Enjoy the win. You earned it! The OGs know this isn’t the first time we’ve been ridiculously early before CT And it damn sure won’t be the last!

• 
  北溟投研日记 (@Kairos1st) reported 53 minutes ago

  7pjoah1BbycgJffij2b58P55NiHDbMqdo7Y1Wrzxpump **** binance Let's send the og to the moon.

• 
  Ackshay P (@ackshay_p) reported 53 minutes ago

  @iffykhan004 @jawadvanar @AshVanar I contacted binance and I will do the same with BASE if you guys want to go down that road

• 
  Novaelen👸 (@888J11) reported 54 minutes ago

  @cas_abbe @binance If this trend continues, tokenized equities could become a much bigger part of how people access traditional markets.

• 
  Cryptrix Labs (@CryptrixLabs) reported 57 minutes ago

  KAITO is pressing into a ceiling near $1.17 that's already turned it away once — and until it can close a 4-hour candle back above $1.20 on real volume, this is a setup to watch, not to lean into. The daily chart tells the risk story cleanly. Price is stalling less than half a percent from that $1.17 rejection level, while the nearest real floor sits down at $1.09 — six to seven percent lower. Today's daily candle is already off about 7.5%. There is far more room for this to unravel than there is for it to break out cleanly from here. Zoom into the 4-hour and the case gets weaker. Price nudged to a slightly higher high, but the underlying push behind it made a lower high — the classic footprint of a move running out of fuel. The shape forming right under $1.17 looks like a double top, and the average price recent buyers paid sits up at $1.23. That means most short-term holders are underwater and have every reason to sell into any bounce. The lower timeframes offer no rescue. On the 1-hour and 15-minute, buyers haven't taken control — price is still trading under the short-term trend. And just overhead, the last two 4-hour candles show heavy forced selling in the $1.18–$1.20 zone. Any rally from here walks straight into that wall of supply before it can prove anything. The read flips if KAITO can put in a strong 4-hour close back above $1.20. Until then, the math on this one is upside-down — too little room up, too much room down. — 📘 Pass Note · $KAITO · Available on Binance

• 
  Edward | Learn Crypto and Money (@Edvrd_) reported 59 minutes ago

  @Cointelegraph Binance wants in on the degen ****, kinda sad where we're headed. This is what Vitalik is talking about, if this space keeps being all about gamba then it's going to die out