Sui Reveals What Caused Three Mainnet Halts After Major Network Upgrade

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-06-02Última atualização em 2026-06-02

Resumo

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

Criptomoedas em alta

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbitHá 25m

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbitHá 25m

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbitHá 44m

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbitHá 44m

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbitHá 53m

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbitHá 53m

Trading

Spot

Artigos em Destaque

Como comprar SUI

Bem-vindo à HTX.com!Tornámos a compra de SUI Network (SUI) simples e conveniente.Segue o nosso guia passo a passo para iniciar a tua jornada no mundo das criptos.Passo 1: cria a tua conta HTXUtiliza o teu e-mail ou número de telefone para te inscreveres numa conta gratuita na HTX.Desfruta de um processo de inscrição sem complicações e desbloqueia todas as funcionalidades.Obter a minha contaPasso 2: vai para Comprar Cripto e escolhe o teu método de pagamentoCartão de crédito/débito: usa o teu visa ou mastercard para comprar SUI Network (SUI) instantaneamente.Saldo: usa os fundos da tua conta HTX para transacionar sem problemas.Terceiros: adicionamos métodos de pagamento populares, como Google Pay e Apple Pay, para aumentar a conveniência.P2P: transaciona diretamente com outros utilizadores na HTX.Mercado de balcão (OTC): oferecemos serviços personalizados e taxas de câmbio competitivas para os traders.Passo 3: armazena teu SUI Network (SUI)Depois de comprar o teu SUI Network (SUI), armazena-o na tua conta HTX.Alternativamente, podes enviá-lo para outro lugar através de transferência blockchain ou usá-lo para transacionar outras criptomoedas.Passo 4: transaciona SUI Network (SUI)Transaciona facilmente SUI Network (SUI) no mercado à vista da HTX.Acede simplesmente à tua conta, seleciona o teu par de trading, executa as tuas transações e monitoriza em tempo real.Oferecemos uma experiência de fácil utilização tanto para principiantes como para traders experientes.

629 Visualizações TotaisPublicado em {updateTime}Atualizado em 2026.06.02

Como comprar SUI

Discussões

Bem-vindo à Comunidade HTX. Aqui, pode manter-se informado sobre os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da plataforma e obter acesso a análises profissionais de mercado. As opiniões dos utilizadores sobre o preço de SUI (SUI) são apresentadas abaixo.

活动图片