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

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

ETH Bull and Bear Views Compilation: Can Ethereum's Value Flow Back to ETH?

Titled "ETH Bull and Bear Views: Can Ethereum's Value Flow Back to ETH?", this article synthesizes the current heated debate around Ethereum's native token, ETH, following Bankless co-founder David Hoffman's decision to sell his entire ETH holdings. The **bullish case**, represented by figures like Tom Lee (BitMine CEO) and Raoul Pal, argues that ETH's core thesis remains intact. They contend Ethereum is the essential, secure, and neutral foundational layer for future finance—encompassing stablecoins, RWA, DeFi, L2s, and Agentic AI. Bulls bet on ETH's long-term revaluation as institutional adoption of on-chain finance grows, with significant buying activity from entities like BitMine and Consensys cited as evidence. Conversely, the **bearish perspective**, led by Hoffman and analysts like Markus Thielen, questions ETH's value capture mechanism. They acknowledge Ethereum's network success but argue that the value created by L2s, DeFi, and applications does not sufficiently accrue to the ETH token itself. Bears point to ETH's prolonged underperformance versus the broader crypto market, lack of traditional cash flows, weakening "ultrasound money" narrative, and apparent institutional retreat (e.g., Harvard Management Company exiting its ETH ETF position) as key concerns. The debate highlights a pivotal shift: ETH is no longer just a community belief asset. The central question is whether ETH can transition from being a "**used infrastructure**" to a "**continuously bought and held core asset**" as more value enters the Ethereum ecosystem. The market is now critically examining the direct link between network growth and ETH's value.

marsbitHá 36m

ETH Bull and Bear Views Compilation: Can Ethereum's Value Flow Back to ETH?

marsbitHá 36m

Crypto is dead, Perps are forever

The crypto industry is shifting from a focus on creating native assets (like altcoins and protocol tokens) to becoming a "global asset pipeline." Native cryptocurrencies, except for Bitcoin, are seen as failing in their value storage and utility promises, with demand driven largely by speculation. Attention and liquidity are now moving toward real-world assets (RWAs) like U.S. stocks, bonds, gold, and oil traded on-chain via perpetual contracts (Perps). Stablecoins like USDT and USDC set the precedent, proving blockchain's core strength is efficient global settlement and transfer, not inventing new monetary systems. Meanwhile, assets like Ethereum and many DeFi tokens struggle as their narratives weaken against tangible traditional assets and the rapid real-world progress of AI. Perpetual contracts have emerged as a pivotal innovation. They simplify trading by offering pure price exposure to any asset, bypassing complexities of ownership, custody, and traditional market hours. Projects like Hyperliquid gained traction by combining CEX-like efficiency with on-chain transparency, capitalizing on post-FTX distrust, macroeconomic volatility, and the surge in demand for 24/7 stock trading. In conclusion, while the era of speculative native "crypto assets" may be over, perpetual contracts persist as the industry's most potent financial instrument—transforming all assets into globally accessible, constantly tradable instruments centered on price speculation.

marsbitHá 42m

Crypto is dead, Perps are forever

marsbitHá 42m

Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance in a Battle for the Skill Store

Skill is becoming a key concept in the AI field, essentially serving as a structured "instruction manual" for AI Agents that specifies tool calls, decision logic, and output standards. This allows Agents to execute predefined tasks. As the number of Skills grows, distribution platforms have emerged. Major tech companies are swiftly entering this space. In March, Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance launched Skill stores within their respective Agent platforms. Subsequently, players like Zhipu AI, Meituan, and Xiaohongshu joined the fray. This competition for the "Skill store" is fundamentally a battle for the AI-era user entry point; whoever controls distribution controls the users. While ByteDance's Coze has experimented with paid Skills, most platforms offer them for free. The real value lies not in the stores themselves but in using them to attract and retain users within an ecosystem, driving revenue from services like cloud computing, model calls, or advertising. The landscape features three main player types: 1) **Internet giants** (e.g., Alibaba, ByteDance, Tencent, Meituan), leveraging Skills to drive traffic and monetize through their broader ecosystems (cloud services, transactions, ads). 2) **Large model companies** (e.g., Zhipu AI, Moonshot AI), using Skill stores to increase user engagement and monetize model API calls. 3) **Content platforms** (e.g., Xiaohongshu), treating Skills as a new content format to generate traffic and ad revenue. However, transforming Skill stores into a sustainable business faces significant hurdles. Key challenges include: the **difficulty in pricing Skills** due to inconsistent outputs across different models and contexts; **lack of cost transparency** (varying token consumption); **security risks** like Skill poisoning; and the **absence of standardized protocols** for development and evaluation. Unlike standardized mobile apps, Skills are often personalized workflows resistant to uniformity, which hinders the establishment of a reliable review and monetization system akin to the App Store. While there is genuine user demand for paid Skills—particularly in enterprise (e.g., contract review) and certain personal productivity scenarios—current platforms offer developers limited and unpredictable distribution. The future of Skill stores depends on overcoming these standardization, evaluation, and safety challenges to make acquiring a Skill as straightforward as downloading an app. For now, the stores function more as display shelves than robust marketplaces.

marsbitHá 42m

Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance in a Battle for the Skill Store

marsbitHá 42m

The Crypto Scene Is Dead, Perpetual Swaps Are Eternal

The crypto industry is undergoing a fundamental shift. The era defined by minting novel, native digital assets (altcoins) is fading. These assets, lacking real-world cash flows or clear value, are losing relevance as attention and capital flow elsewhere. Two powerful external forces are reshaping the space. First, traditional assets like U.S. stocks, bonds, gold, and oil are being tokenized and traded on-chain. Second, the explosive growth of AI, with its tangible products, has overshadowed crypto's once-dominant "future narrative." This marks a critical pivot: crypto is transitioning from being a "factory for new assets" to becoming a "global conduit for existing assets." Its validated utility is not complex financial reinvention but efficient global settlement, transfer, and trading—the original promise of blockchain. Stablecoins like USDT and USDC exemplify this, offering faster dollar movement rather than replacing it. Consequently, native ecosystems like Ethereum face profound challenges. While still crucial infrastructure, ETH struggles to capture value as users interact with Layer 2s or trade traditional assets without needing to hold it. DeFi's grand narrative of rebuilding finance has narrowed to core needs like cheap transfers and deep liquidity. The true breakout innovation is the perpetual contract (Perp). It brilliantly bypasses the complexities of direct asset ownership (custody, compliance, dividends) by creating pure price exposure. Users can speculate on the price movement of *any* asset—NVIDIA, gold, oil—24/7, globally, and with leverage. This "price casino" model, while risky and ethically fraught, delivers unmatched liquidity and accessibility. Projects like Hyperliquid succeeded not by inventing new mechanics but by perfecting the timing and execution of this model. Key drivers included making on-chain Perps feel like centralized exchanges, post-FTX trust migration towards transparency, and rising demand to trade macro assets and equities round-the-clock. In conclusion, the crypto world's most enduring successes are the dollar (via stablecoins), Bitcoin, and trading. Its new frontier is not creating alternative assets but providing a seamless, perpetual trading layer—a new API—for the world's existing financial system. The age of native altcoins is over; the age of perpetual synthetic exposure has begun.

Odaily星球日报Há 51m

The Crypto Scene Is Dead, Perpetual Swaps Are Eternal

Odaily星球日报Há 51m

Trading

Spot
Futuros

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.

590 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