Coinbase 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.

Coinbase Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  bak (@copiumfueled) reported 3 minutes ago

  David Sacks explains why every enterprise wants off the closed models, and almost none of them can actually leave. "Enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that that would be more efficient, and they are seeing their token cost is skyrocketing right now. So everyone's trying to figure out how do we put the brakes on this or at least control it, make sure we're getting ROI." On sovereignty: "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that we discussed last week that Alex Karp talked about, where they're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. So there's no question that enterprises would like to diversify. They would like to get off of these frontier models when they can." But most of them can't. "The problem is I think in most cases they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it, Door Dash figured out how to do it, which is to say they built a token routing system, a layer of middleware that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non-frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that. So this is a case of the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. They are willing, they would like to diversify off of these closed models, but they are unable to do it." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." Sacks was careful to separate spend from usage: "Now I don't think that means that usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing in both these categories. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute cost, you don't have to pay a lab, it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "Anyone who's saying that these closed models are gonna lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data. The revenue is skyrocketing. The most you can say is that enterprises that are technically capable would like to gravitate towards hybrid architectures, but it is just phenomenally convenient to go with the frontier labs, and that's why their revenue is skyrocketing." @theallinpod

• 
  Feranmi (@Kenny_Tomide) reported 4 minutes ago

  $INJ just crossed $5 and the chart finally exhaled Look at what happened from $4.036, price stopped falling, tightened into a base, and then quietly walked back above $5 while most people were looking elsewhere MA7 at $4.859 and MA25 at $4.797 are both now below price and curling upward together That's the daily chart straightening its back after months of slouching Volume is light right now but the order book shows 57% buyers vs 42% sellers, the crowd is leaning one direction $5 was the wall for weeks and now it's the floor being tested Fundamentally the @injective Summit is in 5 days, Coinbase native support lands around July 20, Canary Capital staked ETF filing is live, and monthly burns keep shrinking supply If $5 holds through the weekend the next conversation is $5.50 and then $6 At $5 it's still 90% below its all time high The math hasn't changed but the momentum just did DYOR. Not financial advice #Injective #RWA

• 
  Miss tang 🐬TermMax (@Misstang1102) reported 11 minutes ago

  @last_moon88 @injective @coinbase I'm holding. Sitting tight until we get a clean push above $5. Those upcoming catalysts might help, but no adding yet.

• 
  Danny (@defi_kay_) reported 12 minutes ago

  base may or may not launch a token I don't think a token is a good idea because either: 1. Meaningless meme/governance coin - dumping garbage on your customers is not very good 2. Meaningful asset with ownership over base revenues/IP - not ideal for Coinbase shareholders

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Rivera8Tristan top 5 x402 facilitators based on recent activity: 1. coinbase via USDC — 169M payments in first year, 590k buyers, 100k sellers 2. blockrun — drives 80%+ of x402 transactions, massive volume growth on base 3. meridian — launched x402 inference system, integrated payment rails for robinhood chain, cross-chain agent transactions 4. naven network — naven workspace for deploying AI agents, native x402 runtime support with $USDG funding 5. rlusd — integrating x402 with XRP ledger and RLUSD stablecoin for autonomous agent payments

• 
  basegod4 (@base_god4) reported 15 minutes ago

  Everyone thinks Base failed because it didn’t support its meme communities, didn’t acknowledge the culture, or didn’t reward its early believers. There’s truth to that, but I think the real reason is more nuanced. Base fundamentally misunderstood what the average crypto user actually wants. On paper, their strategy made sense. They assumed users wanted: • Cheap transactions • Endless apps to use • Games and social platforms • Unlimited tokens to trade • Constant new content But that isn’t how retail behaves. Retail doesn’t come to crypto looking for hundreds of small opportunities. They come looking for moonshots. Crypto users think more like venture capitalists than traditional investors. They’re willing to take extreme risk because one 1,000x or 10,000x winner can be life changing. Base built an ecosystem that continuously fragmented liquidity instead of concentrating it. The Coin It movement and Zora accelerated this by creating millions of assets competing for the same capital and attention. Instead of a handful of memes absorbing liquidity and building massive network effects, there were endless tokens each moving a few percent with little chance of becoming the next billion dollar asset. Then Coinbase Listings compounded the problem. Instead of concentrating liquidity into a few Base winners that could 100x or 1,000x after listings, they gave users access to virtually every token, including competing ecosystem coins. That spread liquidity even further. The biggest mistake wasn’t a lack of community support. It was designing an ecosystem that optimized for infinite choice instead of concentrated liquidity. Robinhood has an opportunity to take the opposite approach. Create a small number of flagship projects, concentrate attention and liquidity around them, and use listings to help produce billion dollar winners.

• 
  Vortex | BIP448 (@theonevortex) reported 18 minutes ago

  @YieldForceOne @saylor @coinbase > They can't shut down the network, of course, but they can reject your deposit. WTF are you talking about? Do you even understand how bitcoin works? Nobody can reject a fee paying transaction and that's the point, you understand that right?

• 
  YieldForceOne 🛡️ (@YieldForceOne) reported 25 minutes ago

  @saylor It's the other way around. Without BIP-110, anyone can put anything on the chain and prevent acceptance by institutions. @coinbase is already hostile to $BTC. What happens when you send a block they don't like?

• 
  Michael Johnson (@Michaelstock101) reported 28 minutes ago

  Hear me out before you scroll… This may be the most valuable watchlist I share all year: $XYZ (Block) $COIN (Coinbase) $MSTR (Strategy) $PYPL (PayPal) $AFRM (Affirm Holdings) $SOFI (SoFi Technologies) $CRCL (Circle Internet Group) $HOOD (Robinhood Markets) Save this now. Six months from today, it may look obvious.

• 
  AJZman (@Adam3010589931) reported 31 minutes ago

  @tednotlasso @coinbase @RobinhoodCrypto Terrible

• 
  Hataf Capital (@hataf_capital) reported 32 minutes ago

  Circle Just Crashed 17%. Is OUSD Really The USDC Killer? Circle ($CRCL ) has had a brutal month. On June 30, the stock dropped roughly 17.5% in a single session and closed near $62.6 after Open Standard unveiled Open USD, or OUSD with more than 140 launch partners. When you read the partner list, the market’s reaction makes sense. Visa. Mastercard. BlackRock. Coinbase. Stripe. Google. Shopify. But I think the market skipped an important step. OUSD is not USDC’s replacement yet. It is still a proposed stablecoin with a very impressive guest list. The market priced the announcement as if adoption, liquidity, regulatory approval, and execution had already happened. They have not. OUSD Is A Real Threat, But Not Yet A USDC Killer The pitch is genuinely attractive. Businesses are expected to mint and redeem OUSD without fees or artificial volume caps. Most of the income generated by the reserve assets will flow back to participating firms after a management fee. And that reserve-income sharing is the part Circle investors should take seriously. Circle’s economics depend heavily on the interest earned from the assets backing USDC. OUSD is basically telling large distributors and payment companies: why should one issuer keep the economics when the companies bringing the users can share them? That is a direct attack on Circle’s business model. Coinbase being part of the launch group makes the whole thing even more awkward because Coinbase has historically been one of Circle’s most important distribution partners. But there is a very large difference between having partners and having liquidity. Stablecoins are network businesses. The winner is not automatically the product with the lowest fee. It is the product already sitting inside exchanges, payment rails, wallets, trading pairs, corporate treasury systems, and compliance frameworks. USDC has spent years building that infrastructure. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire’s response was basically that you cannot recreate a decade of liquidity and integrations with one press release. I think that is a fair point. Two days after the OUSD announcement, Standard Chartered launched integrated USDC minting and redemption for institutional clients without requiring them to maintain a direct Circle account. Then, on July 10, Circle received final approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish a national trust bank, pushing the company even deeper into the regulated financial system. That does not look like a company that is finished. Stablecoin Market Is Becoming An Arms Race Coinbase has forecast that the stablecoin market could reach approximately $1.2 trillion by the end of 2028. If that happens, OUSD does not need to destroy USDC to become successful. And USDC does not need to maintain every percentage point of market share for Circle to keep growing. The cake is getting much bigger. Robinhood is already showing us where this is going. Its public blockchain supports USDG, which is issued by Paxos Digital Singapore, while Robinhood Earn lets eligible users lend USDG onchain for an estimated 7% APY. The yield comes from decentralized lending markets, not from the stablecoin itself. But the average user may not care much. They see digital dollars earning more than a bank account inside the same investing app. So no, OUSD is not proof that Circle is dead. It is proof that Circle was early to a market everybody else finally wants. Bitcoin Whales Are Buying The Panic While Circle investors were panicking, something equally interesting was happening underneath Bitcoin. Bitcoin briefly broke below $57,000 before recovering toward $64,000. US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded roughly $4.06 billion of net outflows in June, their worst month since launching. But large holders went the other way. Whale wallets accumulated more than 270,000 BTC in two weeks, worth approximately $16.7 billion. That is a massive transfer of supply from public-market vehicles and weaker hands into large balance sheets. Now, whales are not always right. And onchain wallet classifications are not perfect either. But when price is falling, ETF investors are selling, sentiment is terrible, and large holders absorb more than four times the dollar value of ETF outflows, I pay attention. This kind of divergence often appears near major bottoms. It does not tell you the exact day the bottom is in. Strategy Finally Found A Reverse Gear Strategy ($MSTR ) also made the most important change to its capital model since it started accumulating Bitcoin. The company authorized up to $1 billion of preferred-security repurchases and another $1 billion of MSTR common-stock repurchases. It also created a Bitcoin monetization program allowing it to sell BTC to build up to $1.25 billion of additional reserves, cover preferred dividends and interest, or fund repurchases. In plain English, Strategy is no longer operating with one button labeled BUY BITCOIN. It finally added a reverse gear. STRC subsequently rebounded sharply from its $71.25 record low, although at approximately $86 it remains well below the $100 level Strategy wants it to trade around. And that is the contradiction. $STRC is supposed to behave like a relatively stable income product. Yet it dropped to $71.25 and then bounced violently. A security designed around a $100 stated amount should not trade like a small-cap momentum stock. The new framework is better for Strategy because it gives management flexibility. But the volatility exposed how dependent these preferred securities remain on Bitcoin, liquidity, and confidence in Strategy’s entire capital stack. My Take I do not think OUSD replaces USDC anytime soon. I do think it forces Circle to share more economics, compete harder, and accept a lower valuation multiple than investors once expected. I also do not think whale accumulation guarantees that Bitcoin has bottomed. But 270,000 BTC moving into large wallets while ETF investors sell is not something I would ignore. The market is dumping sentiment faster than the fundamentals are deteriorating. And when that happens, the opportunity is usually not in blindly buying everything. It is in separating the businesses facing a real structural break from the ones being repriced because the market suddenly became terrified of a future that has not happened yet. A daily CRCL, OUSD, and USDC catalyst watch would be useful while this story develops; say the word and I’ll set it up.

• 
  Vivek Kotecha (@vbkotecha) reported 33 minutes ago

  98% of all AI agent settlements use USDC. That is not adoption. That is dependence. And dependence is a systemic risk. A collaborative study by Keyrock, Coinbase, and Tempo found that between May 2025 and April 2026, machine-to-machine settlements totaled $73 million across 176 million transactions. Nearly all of them, 98%, were conducted in Circle's USDC. Ben Harvey, the Keyrock researcher behind the study, described this as both a validation and a vulnerability. If Circle faces a regulatory challenge, a de-peg event, or even sustained downtime, the agent economy has no fallback. Think about what that means. The entire emerging machine commerce ecosystem, 104,000 registered agents, 176 million transactions, $73 million in volume, all running on a single stablecoin issued by a single company subject to a single jurisdiction's regulations. If the US government decides to regulate USDC tomorrow, the agent economy stops. Not partially. Completely. This creates an obvious opportunity. Whoever builds the alternative settlement rail wins the diversification trade. Not just another stablecoin. A fundamentally different settlement mechanism. XRP Ledger is already moving in this direction. Nearly 1 million AI agent transactions have settled through XRPL via the x402 facilitator. Agents paying for APIs, AI inference, and cloud computing using XRP and RLUSD. Solana is positioning itself as an alternative. ERPC integrated x402 into Solana mainnet for pay-per-query access. The agent economy needs settlement diversity the same way financial markets need asset diversity. Concentration risk is the enemy of resilience. If you are building agent infrastructure, do not build on USDC alone. Build multi-rail settlement. Because the day Circle has a problem is the day single-rail agents go dark.

• 
  Seth Rosen (@TavCannaLLC) reported 34 minutes ago

  @brian_armstrong You also charge $300 per year for Coinbase One Premium and I can get similar benefits with telephone support at Kraken for $50 per year

• 
  Shoreline Digital Assets 🇺🇸 (@ShorelineDA) reported 35 minutes ago

  @tednotlasso @coinbase @RobinhoodCrypto This is not uncommon. Our attempt to work with Conbase was one of the worst customer experiences we've ever had, and in this industry, that's really saying something. For a +$40b company, the levels of incompetence we faced (at literally every step) were astounding. Stay away.

• 
  Wormwood (@Mister___Q) reported 35 minutes ago

  Coinbase is a terrible. They locked my account repeatedly for trying to send a very small amount of btc to an approved wallet. Each time I reverify myself and each time a multi day wait with no access to trading or my funds. I don't recommend them at all. Please avoid.