Sui Reveals What Caused Three Mainnet Halts After Major Network Upgrade

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-06-02Last updated on 2026-06-02

Abstract

The Sui mainnet experienced three outages on May 28 and 29 following its 1.72 network upgrade. The first two halts, on Thursday and Friday morning, were caused by a bug in the new hybrid gas charging logic for address balances. A transaction cancellation due to insufficient funds could later trigger an underflow during the gas settlement process. A temporary patch was applied, but a masked error caused a repeat halt Friday morning. The third outage Friday afternoon was a separate issue triggered by a scheduled epoch change. A bug prevented validators from properly persisting the failed status of a randomness generation protocol, stalling the transition. All issues have been resolved with no risk to user funds, and network activity has resumed. The Sui Foundation cited lessons around improving epoch resilience and the critical nature of gas charging logic.

Sui’s mainnet suffered three separate outages across May 28 and May 29 after the network’s 1.72 release exposed edge cases in gas charging and validator restart logic, according to a postmortem from the Sui Foundation. The foundation said the issues have since been resolved, network activity has resumed, and “no user funds were at risk.”

The incidents began on Thursday, May 28, when Sui’s mainnet halted at around 7 a.m. PT and remained down until roughly 1:30 p.m. PT. A second outage followed on Friday morning, starting at about 5 a.m. PT and ending around 8:30 a.m. PT. The third halt began Friday afternoon at approximately 1:30 p.m. PT and was resolved around 7:20 p.m. PT.

According to the foundation, the first two outages stemmed from crash bugs involving the interaction between gas charging logic and Sui’s 1.72 upgrade, which introduced address balances. The third outage was separate, triggered during a scheduled epoch change after validator restarts exposed a latent bug in how randomness state was preserved.

“During the outages, no user funds were at risk, and the network did not revert any committed transactions when it resumed,” the Sui Foundation said. “As of now, validators have fully addressed the known issues caused by both the original gas-charging bug and the randomness-state bug, and network activity has resumed.”

Sui Gas Charging Bug Triggered Initial Halts

The first problem centered on Sui’s new address balance feature, which allows users to store funds and pay for gas without relying solely on coin objects. Transactions on Sui can pay gas through address balances, coin objects, or a hybrid structure combining both.

The edge case emerged in that hybrid gas path. When a transaction attempted to spend from an address balance that could not cover competing transactions, the scheduler correctly cancelled it with an InsufficientFundsForWithdraw error. But later, during gas smashing — the process of combining input coins into a single gas-paying coin — the same reservation could still attempt to debit funds again.

In the foundation’s explanation, the crash did not occur directly during gas smashing but during settlement, when balance deltas were reconciled by a system transaction. A negative delta applied to a zero balance caused an underflow.

The immediate fix was conceptually straightforward: avoid gas smashing when a transaction is cancelled with InsufficientFundsForWithdraw. Validators adopted that fix on Thursday, bringing the network back online. But the foundation acknowledged that the patch was an interim measure, chosen to restore the network while engineers developed a more complete solution.

“Changing gas logic is a delicate operation,” the foundation wrote. “As explained above, there are complicated interactions between address balances and coins. Other than fixing bugs, gas logic changes must preserve all previous behavior or use appropriate version gating.”

That interim patch contained a known weakness. If a transaction had multiple cancellation reasons, another error could mask the InsufficientFundsForWithdraw condition. When that happened Friday morning, the original underflow path could still be reached, causing a second halt.

Epoch Change Exposed Randomness-State Bug

The third outage came after the network had resumed normal operation Friday morning. At the next scheduled epoch change, validators failed to complete the transition because of a bug tied to Sui’s distributed key generation protocol, or DKG, which bootstraps randomness for transactions that depend on on-chain randomness.

During the earlier restart cycle, participation was not high enough for the next epoch’s DKG process, so randomness was disabled as designed. The problem was that the failure verdict was not written to disk. As validators restarted again, they came back up without remembering that DKG had failed.

“With validators no longer remembering DKG had failed, neither could happen, the paused queue grew, and end-of-epoch logic — which must drain that queue before closing — was left waiting on DKG that would never come,” the foundation said.

The fix had two parts: persisting DKG status across restarts and adding a mechanism that allowed validators to close the stuck epoch at a coordinated point. That mechanism was used once to close the affected epoch, after which the network moved into the next epoch and randomness was restored.

The postmortem framed the outages as a broader engineering lesson for Sui. The foundation said end-of-epoch resilience needs further investment, particularly around graceful degradation and operational force-close mechanisms. It also said gas charging deserves the same level of rigor as the Move VM or Mysticeti consensus, given its interaction with settlement, conservation checks, and scheduling.

At press time, SUI traded at $0.8798.

Sui remains below the 20-week EMA, 1-week chart | Source: SUIUSDT on TradingView.com

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat were the root causes of the three mainnet halts experienced by Sui?

AThe first two outages were caused by crash bugs involving the interaction between the new address balance feature in the 1.72 upgrade and gas charging logic. The third outage was caused by a latent bug related to how randomness state was preserved during validator restarts, which was exposed during a scheduled epoch change.

QAccording to the postmortem, were any user funds at risk during the network outages?

ANo. The Sui Foundation stated that during the outages, no user funds were at risk, and the network did not revert any committed transactions when it resumed.

QWhat specific condition triggered the gas-charging bug that led to the first two halts?

AThe bug was triggered in a hybrid gas payment scenario. When a transaction attempted to spend from an address balance that could not cover competing transactions, it was cancelled. Later, during the 'gas smashing' process, the system incorrectly tried to debit funds from the same cancelled reservation again, leading to an underflow error during settlement.

QWhat was the key issue with the Distributed Key Generation (DKG) protocol that caused the third outage?

ADuring validator restarts, the failure verdict of a DKG process (which was disabled due to low participation) was not written to disk. When validators restarted again, they had no memory of the DKG failure. This caused the end-of-epoch logic to wait indefinitely for a DKG process that would never complete, stalling the epoch transition.

QWhat broader engineering lessons did the Sui Foundation highlight from these incidents?

AThe foundation highlighted two main areas for improvement: 1) Enhancing end-of-epoch resilience with better graceful degradation and operational force-close mechanisms. 2) Applying the same level of engineering rigor to gas charging logic as is applied to the Move VM or consensus, due to its complex interactions with settlement, conservation checks, and scheduling.

Related Reads

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

Vitalik Buterin's recent algorithmic stablecoin proposal envisions using an option-like mechanism to create a stablecoin without the liquidation risks inherent in traditional collateralized debt position (CDP) models. The design splits one unit of ETH into two components: a 'stable' leg (P) that maintains value up to a certain strike price, and an 'upside' leg (N) that captures any appreciation above that price. Together, they always sum to one ETH, eliminating the need for debt or liquidation mechanisms. From an options perspective, the stable leg essentially functions as a synthetic, covered call position. However, significant challenges exist. For the stable asset to maintain its peg, it must continuously roll deep in-the-money call options, leading to potential rollover slippage, predictable trading paths vulnerable to front-running, and liquidity issues. Crucially, the system's scalability depends on a constant demand for the upside leg—a form of leveraged ETH long position without funding rates or liquidation risk. It's unclear if such persistent, specific demand will materialize from speculators or market makers who have simpler alternatives like perpetual swaps. The author, drawing from experience with Rysk, argues that DeFi options have struggled as standalone trading products due to complexity and fragmented liquidity. Their potential lies instead as foundational infrastructure underpinning more complex financial primitives like stablecoins, structured yields, or index products—transforming from a direct product into a core pricing and risk distribution engine for the next generation of on-chain finance.

marsbit1h ago

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit3h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit3h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit4h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit4h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy SUI

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing SUI Network (SUI) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy SUI Network (SUI) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your SUI Network (SUI)After purchasing your SUI Network (SUI), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade SUI Network (SUI)Easily trade SUI Network (SUI) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

8.3k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy SUI

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SUI (SUI) are presented below.

活动图片