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:

• 
  JabroniVille69 (@JabroniVille69) reported 4 minutes ago

  @binance @coinbase could help liquidate the shorts any second too $Jimothy 🚀

• 
  Yehoshua Zion (@YehoshuaZion) reported 9 minutes ago

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

• 
  Empty Buckets (@emptybuckets11) reported 10 minutes ago

  @soapweb3 $SIREN on base. Not that piece of **** binance coin.

• 
  Kampy83 (@cnd1983) reported 18 minutes ago

  @tranc3y @binance @BinanceWallet is it being walked down to flsuh weak hands before take off? watching.

• 
  Backtesting Arena (@SifuBacktest) reported 20 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.

• 
  Crypto Freedom ｜买美股上币安 (@Cryptomodeerf) reported 21 minutes ago

  Yo, just saw the new mission for JUST DAO's TRON DeFi Summer S1 Sprint. TBH, I was kinda skeptical at first, but now I'm curious. JustLend DAO sounds like it has some cool features to check out, like SBM V1 and V2. Honestly, I've been looking for ways to boost my TRX staking returns, so this is kinda interesting. Ngl, I've been a bit down on DeFi lately with all the scams and low yields, but something about this mission feels different. The 1k USDT reward pool isn't bad either, if you know what I mean. TBH, I'm still figuring out how to use Binance Wallet to access JustLend DAO properly, but from what I've seen so far, it looks promising. Alright, time to get serious and see if this mission can really deliver on its promise of higher efficiency and better returns. Fingers crossed, man... @justinsuntron @DeFi_JUST #TRONEcostar

• 
  0xRetardio (@0xRetardio) reported 21 minutes ago

  Most Web3 projects don’t have an airdrop problem. They have a human verification problem. Base just introduced one of the most interesting approaches to solving Sybil attacks onchain. Imagine you’re launching an airdrop worth $1M with a simple goal: ➢ Reward 100,000 genuine users ➢ Each person gets their fair share. Pretty straightforward goal but there’s a risk of potential Sybil attack. For years, projects have tried solving this with wallet filters : ➢ Wallet age ➢ Transaction history ➢ Token balance ➢ Gas spent, etc However the problem doesn’t get fixed because those metrics used are easy to fake. A farmer can simply fund thousands of wallets today, leave them untouched for months, interact with a few protocols, and eventually every wallet appears “eligible.” While others rely on KYC, users have to upload IDs, onboarding becomes slower, conversion drops, and projects inherit compliance responsibilities. Neither approach truly answers the one question that matters: Is this one real human, or one person operating hundreds of wallets? That’s where Base Verify Onchain introduces a different approach. Here’s how it works. Imagine I own three wallets: ➢ Wallet A ➢ Wallet B ➢ Wallet C Even though they’re different wallets, they all belong to me. First, I verify ownership of an existing account, such as Coinbase or another supported platform. If I meet the protocol’s requirements, Base Verify generates a deterministic identity hash. Think of it like this: Wallet A → 0xABCD123… Later, I connect Wallet B but instead of generating a brand-new identity, it returns: Wallet B → 0xABCD123… Then I try Wallet C, Again: Wallet C → 0xABCD123… The smart contract immediately recognizes:“We’ve already seen this person.” The contract doesn’t know my: ➢ Name ➢ Email ➢ Binance/Coinbase account ➢ X username, etc Instead it only stores one anonymous identity hash. That hash can’t be reversed to reveal who I am, but it’s consistent enough for the contract to know it’s still the same real person. Also we can say: Maximum 1,000 tokens per wallet. Projects can now enforce: Maximum 1,000 tokens per real person. Creating another 500 wallets suddenly provides zero advantage. This same idea extends to: ➢ Fair token launches ➢ One-person-one-vote governance ➢ Loyalty programs based on trusted real-world signals ➢ DeFi incentives that reward genuine users instead of professional farmers Crypto has always struggled to balance three things: ➢ Privacy ➢ Decentralization ➢ Sybil resistance Improving one usually meant compromising another. If this approach proves reliable at scale, it could fundamentally change how Web3 distributes incentives, runs governance, and proves personhood.

• 
  Crypto Warehouse (@GibCryptoNews) reported 22 minutes ago

  This ongoing issue targeting @cryptocom's customers is sad to see. Rumours online are that it is a result of information being sold on the open market with data of existing clients. I hope it is resolved quickly to stop further funds being lost. Turn on every single security feature, whether it is Coinbase, Binance or Crypto(dot)com. Stay safe.

• 
  Ben Ezra (@benezrafx) reported 24 minutes ago

  1/ Outstanding Piece on Bitcoin by Charles Najjar . For example, He writes, "Today, the entire ecosystem relies on the solvency of companies like Coinbase, Binance, Tether, Strategy… all of which are in a critical financial situation. Should any of them collapse, the whole house of cards will fall down. The irony is striking. Bitcoin was designed to eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries. Yet Bitcoin users increasingly trust intermediaries to hold their Bitcoins. Even miners do! How absurd is that?"

• 
  Kevihaiceth 💹🧲 (@Kevihaiceth) reported 30 minutes ago

  @LawZ1125 @apecoin @binance hopefully they add direct support very soon

• 
  Natalia (@Nataliaaly149) reported 33 minutes ago

  You bought crypto. Now what? Most people think the crypto journey is only about watching charts, finding entries, and waiting for the right time to sell. But holding an asset is also a decision. This is where crypto earning products come into the conversation. Instead of keeping your assets completely inactive, some products allow eligible users to explore ways to potentially earn rewards on supported crypto assets. One example is Binance Simple Earn. It offers different product types depending on what users are looking for: 🔹 Flexible Products For users who want more access to their assets and prefer not to commit for a fixed period. 🔹 Locked Products For users who are comfortable committing assets for a specific duration based on the product terms. But earning products are not just about chasing higher numbers. Before participating, users should understand: • Supported assets and availability can vary • Reward rates may change • Terms, risks, and eligibility requirements matter Crypto is not only about buying and selling. Understanding the tools available and knowing how they work is an important part of becoming a smarter participant in the ecosystem. Learn first. Explore responsibly. Make informed decisions. #Binance #BinanceAcademy #LearnWithBinance

• 
  KΞRL_✂️ (@KRL_defi_) reported 36 minutes ago

  Pudgy Penguins CEO Luca Netz says exchange listings are still the biggest catalyst for massive token runs. "You could only get a runner so far without the listings... If you don't get the listing, your runner's not going to billions. It's just not going there." "I don't see Binance and all these major exchanges right now listing coins when Bitcoin's not at 100k. I think they need a wealth effect... When wealth is down, what they don't wanna do is fragment liquidity. They just wanna concentrate it. They want people to HODL." "As long as you're not getting listings, you won't see the runners the way that you wanna see them. But we have a new player in Robinhood... If Robinhood lists one of their on-chain memes, it probably is like a straight shot to half a billion for sure."

• 
  Binance Customer Support (@BinanceHelpDesk) reported 36 minutes ago

  @f_diamo @binance Hi there! We are aware of a fake announcement circulating online claiming that Binance is shutting down its operations. This information is false and does not originate from Binance. The platform remains fully operational. Don't believe the FUD, please rely only on Binance's official communication channels for accurate and trusted updates. ˆLP

• 
  Aftabahmad (@Aftabahmad6252) reported 37 minutes ago

  @sunshinebinance Please help me trade for free binance 🙏🚦

• 
  Jacob James (@Jacob_james656) reported 39 minutes ago

  What Are Crypto Earning Products? Crypto isn't just about buying and selling. Many platforms also offer earning products that allow users to put eligible digital assets to work while holding them. Crypto earning products are designed for users who want to earn rewards on supported assets instead of leaving them idle. Different products have different features, requirements, and levels of flexibility, so it's important to understand how they work before participating. Binance Simple Earn is a beginner friendly example that offers two main product types: • Flexible Products These allow eligible assets to earn rewards while giving users the option to redeem their assets at any time, subject to the product terms. Best for users who want easier access to their assets. • Locked Products These require assets to remain committed for a fixed period in exchange for potentially higher reward rates than Flexible products. Best for users who are comfortable keeping their assets locked until the selected term ends. Before using any crypto earning product, consider these questions: • Which digital assets are supported? • Is the product Flexible or Locked? • Can I redeem my assets anytime? • What happens if I redeem early? • Are reward rates fixed or variable? • Is the product available in my region? • What risks remain if the market price of the asset changes? Understanding these features helps you choose the product that best matches your financial goals and liquidity needs. Always read the product details carefully and remember that digital asset prices can rise or fall. This post is for educational purposes only and is not financial advice. #Binance #BinanceAcademy #LearnWithBinance