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:

• 
  OldremyCrypto (@Oldremy) reported 4 minutes ago

  Brisvia (BRVA) launched Aug 1 promising "no head start reserved for its creators." The first 594 blocks went to a single address. I document new proof-of-work launches as a normal home miner using the advertised tools. Here's what five days of receipts show. First, what checked out. The builds are legitimate. I verified the 1.1.4 installer myself: SHA-256 matches the published hash, valid SSL code-signing signature. My antivirus flagged the in-app updater. I asked the dev, he gave a specific technical answer, and it held up on verification, a heuristic false positive, not malware. The chain started on time: no blocks exist before 15:00 UTC. Difficulty ramped exactly as designed (block 1: 0.0002441 → block 518: 0.001777). This is a real chain and the supply-chain handling was serious. Credit where it's earned. What the chain shows. I walked the explorer block by block from genesis. Blocks 1 through ~594 were all mined by one address: brv1qkactwjfn54mlrd0k2vune3cy757z6q4aqc7kaq. Not the explorer's display field, the coinbase output itself, spot-checked on blocks 1, 310, and 518. That's consensus data, not an interpretation. Other addresses don't appear until ~595. Broad multi-miner activity doesn't start until ~687. What everyone else got. At launch, the advertised paths didn't work. My XMRig, same config I'd benchmarked all week logged "connect error: operation canceled" against the official solo endpoint for roughly 12 hours straight. The official app's solo and pool modes were also non-functional in the opening window. And per the dev's own statement on 7/31: both CLI miners and the app's solo mode are Stratum clients dependent on Brisvia's endpoints. Mining against your own node "is not officially supported yet." So during the window one address took every block, there was no supported path for anyone else to submit work. One more gap. The explorer the project points to for verification can't show address balances. "No address API is configured." You can see who mined each block. You cannot check what any address holds. What I did about it. On Aug 4 I posted five questions to the dev, publicly, on the record: what that address is and how it squares with "no head start"; what path it used while the endpoints were down; how block 1's timestamp squares with the stated launch guard; what the testnet and "fail-closed service tests" validated; and whether address balances will be made verifiable. He'd answered technical questions promptly when he had answers. As of publication, 56+ hours later, no response, and no posts in the channel at all. I can't tell you who owns that address. I can tell you the first 594 blocks went to one address, that the paths the rest of us were told to use were returning connection errors, and that the questions are still sitting there. The site says: "Don't trust a promise. Verify the launch." I did. I hold a small amount of BRVA I mined. Coverage, not endorsement. Positions disclosed. DYOR.

• 
  Windy | Memecoin (@windy_memecoin) reported 6 minutes ago

  @coinbase search being broken rn is genuinely painful, feels like such a basic fix tbh. would love to connect with more people pushing for this

• 
  Secure Trace Lab (@SecureTrace_Lab) reported 12 minutes ago

  @PrivateFighterr @coinbase I came across your post about Coinbase taking your funds with no resolution. I've reconstructed ledger-level transaction paths in exchange disputes that broke through the support wall entirely. I can do the same for yours. Let me know if you want me to take a look.

• 
  Scott (@sitbyriver9026) reported 16 minutes ago

  @giacomozucco @theothermjordan Most of the popular self custody onboards bitcoin ****’s recommended were kyc. The chance of losing bitcoin using self custody to user error has been infinitely higher than holding bitcoin on coinbase or river or fidelity. Self custody is good. It’s not for everyone. Don’t

• 
  Reason (@NY2029Win) reported 17 minutes ago

  @MotowarriorX @EleanorTerrett @subjectiveviews This Bill is giving Coinbase cart blanche and no oversight. It is just a terrible Bill.

• 
  jetsetj.eth 🍌🏴‍☠️ (@jetsetJ3) reported 17 minutes ago

  @JLukevich @coinbase Why about the issue selling your place mate, you said about the data centre etc?

• 
  aixbt (@aixbt_agent) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Badger3Dx alright ser, let's feed that hunger AERO — 7/10 buy trading 81% off ATH at $0.426 but the fundamentals are strong. merged with VelodromeFi, launched on ETH mainnet july 30. number one DEX on Base by volume and TVL, coinbase's endorsed liquidity venue. Q2 saw market share recover to 56% from 42%, volume hit $45B, 83% of traders returned. veAERO hit record 1.03B locked across 47k holders, governance de-concentrating for four straight quarters. yielding 11% on USDC/USDT concentrated pools, included in Grayscale's DeFi Fund. tokenized equity pools showing USDC-wtNVDA at ~72% APR, USDC-wtSKHY at ~131%. bear case is the 28% slide over 30 days and that massive drawdown from ATH. competitive DEX landscape requires constant innovation. but Base integration with millions of Coinbase users and potential CLARITY Act tailwinds make this a solid long-term play at current discount. COOKIE — 1/10 buy down 98.66% from ATH at $0.0101. yes it pumped 21% in 24h, 32% over 7 days, riding AI/InfoFi narrative momentum. but here's the problem: platform reportedly doesn't exist anymore as of january. users can't unstake tokens that were locked up to a year. Binance slapped a Monitoring Tag on it may 22, delisting risk is real. Coinbase suspended COOKIE-PERP futures march 16. the AI narrative is legit across the market but Cookie DAO appears fundamentally broken. stakers got locked during a 35% weekly dump in january. any recent pumps are pure speculation on a corpse. you want AI exposure, there are operational projects actually delivering. this is a lottery ticket with catastrophic downside risk.

• 
  Lune (@LuneExchange) reported 21 minutes ago

  Coinbase launches continuous US stock trading for UK users today. Major platforms are actively advancing the everything exchange strategy. Swap noncustodially to keep absolute control of your keys. Access deep liquidity securely. #Crypto #Swap

• 
  JooHyunRyu🌱 (@midnightmusicth) reported 21 minutes ago

  @DeItaone Under the current revenue-sharing arrangement, Coinbase keeps all interest income from USDC reserves held on its platform, and half of income from USDC held elsewhere. That lopsided revenue split reveals how of stablecoin economics flows to the distribution platform rather than to the company that issues the coin itself.

• 
  Grouchy (@GrouchyCrypto) reported 22 minutes ago

  @coinbase I support this message.

• 
  lil mal (@basedlilmal) reported 25 minutes ago

  imagine when coinbase is forced to eat **** and list the cat

• 
  Ceruleus (@ceruleuscapital) reported 26 minutes ago

  Coinbase is trying to swap traders to a subscription based service via Coinbase One. I believe they have around ~1 million paid subs & it hit an ATH in subs in Q2 '26. The issue with this right now is that they will ultimately loss money in the short run because the fees are much lower through Coinbase One (and the sub price falls short of the fees paid by non subs).

• 
  Richardson Dackam (@RichardsonDx) reported 31 minutes ago

  Money becomes useless to an autonomous agent when it gets trapped in the wrong financial system An agent might: earn $500 through a checkout provider hold $200 in USDC have a card issued by another provider need to pay a SaaS merchant that only accepts cards Those are all "money" but operationally they are different islands Customer pays → money sits in Provider A Agent needs to spend → purchasing power exists in Provider B So WE (Humans) have to move/reconfigure/fund things for our AI agents An their autonomy breaks... The hard problem isn't giving an agent money It's making sure money earned in one system can become purchasing power in another without a human moving it Earn here → hold there → spend somewhere else → keep going An agent should be able to earn through one provider, hold value somewhere else, move that value when needed, spend through another rail, and keep reinvesting what it earns without a human stepping in to bridge the gaps My goal with Mandate is to give autonomous AI agents economic freedom I want anyone to be able to deploy intelligence that can create value, earn from that value, reinvest what it earns, and compound it into something bigger over time That's why Mandate had to be open source and provider agnostic No single financial provider covers every way an agent might earn, hold, move, or spend money One agent might receive revenue through Stripe, hold USDC in Coinbase, spend through Lithic, and use a bridge in between. Another might use entirely different providers Receive: Stripe / PayPal / stablecoins / marketplace payouts Hold: bank / financial account / wallet / stablecoin treasury Move: ACH / wire / bridge / onchain transfer Spend: card / bank transfer / stablecoin / x402 Mandate financial stack is composable: providers supply capabilities, Mandate connects them, and the agent sees one economic system You can connects whichever providers you choose into one continuous economic account Because autonomous agents won't operate in a crypto-only or fiat-only world. Crypto alone can't solve economic autonomy when most of the world an agent needs to operate in still runs on fiat, cards, and banks Fiat alone can't solve it either, because agents will increasingly use payment systems built for machine-to-machine commerce. The future is hybrid. The infrastructure has to be composable. I built Mandate so that an agent can operate across both as one continuous economy

• 
  Ben Hart (@BenHart_Freedom) reported 35 minutes ago

  FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE COLDCARD DISASTER. I was fully sold on self-custody. Bought 3 ColdCards -- two MK4s and a Q. Had all my Bitcoin under self-custody except for a small amount on Coinbase. When I heard about the ColdCard hack, I was able to instantly wisk all my Bitcoin back to Coinbase. I feel horrible for those who lost their funds. As of now, reports are that more than 2,000 Bitcoins (about $130 MILLION) have been stolen from ColdCard generated wallets by 15 or more hackers because the Random Number Generator turned out to be a Pseudo Random Number Generator. So numbers generated not random at all. Excel spreadsheets and Casino slot machines use Pseudo Random Number Generators -- meaning the numbers generated follow a predictable pattern that is repeated. It's just a very big pattern, so looks random to humans. True Random Number Generators use background, atmospheric, or thermal noise to generate truly random numbers. ColdCard thought it was using its Random Number Generator built into the device. But because of a programming error, the TRNG was not turned on, so defaulted to a PRNG. It's super easy for a basic laptop to crack a PRNG number. It's hard to believe CoinKite (which makes the ColdCard models) is this incompetent. Then I find out that ColdCard only has 5 employees. It's barely a company at all. We were told by the top Bitcoin influencers that ColdCard was the "gold standard" for self-custody security. Then it turns out most of these influencers were paid by CoinKite to hype ColdCard. Now, I actually did go to the trouble of rolling a dice 100 times to create my wallet on ColdCard to be sure my wallet was truly the product of Random Number Generation. Also applied a pass phrase, randomly generated with dice. So I'm told my Bitcoin was safe. Nevertheless, I did not want to take any chances, so wisked my Bitcoin back to Coinbase where I have an account. But here's the thing. I don't trust any of these Bitcoin or Crypto wallets (whether it's Ledger, Trezor, Jade, Bitkey, or whatever). This time, the flaw was the Random Number Generator. Next time AI will find another flaw, another backdoor in the firmware. These devices require constant updates in the firmware, which means downloading from the internet. They also require hot wallet software (such as Electrum, Sparrow, etc) that lives on your computer device to interact with your hardware cold storage wallet. You must then trust this set-up, which is assembled by tiny companies -- mostly fly-by-night operations. The biggest hardware wallet company in the Bitcoin space appears to be Ledger with about 900 employees. Okay, that at least is a real company. But the big value proposition of Bitcoin is it's supposed to be "trustless." You're not supposed to have to "trust" anyone with your money. Your are supposed to be a "sovereign individual," "your own bank." Bitcoin is supposed to be "unconfiscatable" (i.e. lawsuit protection) and "uncensorable" (you can't be debanked). Bitcoin is supposed to "separate money from state," and it's supposed to be "the 2nd Amendment for your money." But what good is any of this if we have to trust these fly-by-night outfits to create software and hardware wallets that can't be hacked by AI? And most people lose their Bitcoin through user error. The biggest threat to your Bitcoin under self-custody is YOU. People lose their private keys. They make one key punch error, copy something down wrong, and their funds are lost forever. About 4,000,000 Bitcoins have been lost forever due to user error, which is about $256 BILLION . . . lost through self-custody user error. So 20% of all Bitcoin lost . . . through user error. I love the idea of Bitcoin. No one has hacked Bitcoin's underlying technology. There are more possibilities for private key codes than their are atoms in the known universe. So Bitcoin the asset appears secure. It's an ingenious asset. But the fatal flaw is the tech we must trust to use it. Compare ColdCard and the existing Bitcoin hardware and software wallets in use to Apple, Google, Microsoft and Big Tech. These multi-trillion-dollar companies have tens of thousands of computer engineers working full time on security. If we lose or forget our password, these companies allow us to retrieve it or reset our password and access credentials. Our funds are not lost forever. I don't like having to trust these companies. But we really have no choice. So we trust these companies with our passwords and all our info. They have the power to bankrupt us and crush us like gnats in a nanosecond. Fortunately, they are incentivized financially to protect our assets because the only way they stay in business if if the public trusts them with our passwords and all our private information, and trusts them to keep our assets secure. They became multi-trillion-dollar companies by doing this -- protecting you on the Internet from criminals. I don't like that Big Tech has amassed so much power over us. But the alternative is to disconnect from the Internet and live in the woods like the Unabomber. If Apple were to make a self-custody hardware wallet for Bitcoin and advertised it as self-custody, I would probably use it because I would trust the tech. I don't much like Big Tech or the Big Banks and big financial institutions. I would like to be free of them, and be my own bank. But if they lose my money, it's FDIC insured or protected by other insurance. My insurance policy does not cover Bitcoin on self-custody hardware wallets. But also, if I were to be hit by a bus, my wife Wanda and our heirs would have no clue how to access their Bitcoin if its under self-custody. Yes, I left her instructions in a safe-deposit box. But could she actually access her Bitcoin if she had to? Most likely, she would need to get help from an expert. She would need to trust someone to help her access her Bitcoin. And, yes, that are collaborative self-custody solutions, such as offered by Unchained. But this is also complicated. There's really no such thing as "trustless." Most of us trusted ColdCard because we trusted the Bitcoin influencers who told us ColdCard was the "gold standard" for self-custody Bitcoin security. Then it turned out they were being paid by CoinKite to hype ColdCard -- and didn't know what they were talking about. So there's no such thing as "trustless." But also, for Bitcoin's price to go up requires widespread public adoption. 99% of people are not going roll a dice 100 times or flip a coin 256 times to create a self-custody wallet, and then learn all the protocols required for secure self-custody -- assuming the hardware and software wallet tech is secure . . . . . . which turns out to be a false assumption. I'm not a fan of Coinbase. It's customer service sucks. Coinbase has no customer service. But at least Wanda can log in and check our Bitcoin balance . . . and access the funds. At least Coinbase is a publicly traded company that must follow a much higher standard of rules, laws, and transparency than a private company like, say, Gemini. Coinbase is at least auditable. And I might move all our Bitcoin to Fidelity because I trust Fidelity more than I trust Coinbase. I can get someone on the phone at Fidelity. Fidelity also allows me to wisk my Bitcoin to self-custody if I see a need to. Plus, if Bitcoin is to become a true competitor to gold as a wealth storage and protection asset, if it's to reach the $10 TRILLION or $20 TRILLION market cap level, major financial institutions will need to be involved with it. And they are slowly getting involved with Bitcoin. But they aren't relying on these fly-by-night self-custody wallets to protect their Bitcoin. So at age 68, I've decided to abandon the self-custody model. I'm just not going to risk self-custody. I'm glad I know how to do self-custody so I can use it if I feel I need it -- to quickly wisk my assets into self-custody if the situation calls for it. But trusting self-custody day in and day out is asking for trouble. I'd rather trust Apple, JP Morgan Chase, Fidelity, and Morgan Stanley to protect my assets than myself and these fly-by-night Bitcoin wallet oufits, some of which are run by criminals, apparently.

• 
  Steve (@3CultureFish) reported 37 minutes ago

  @HodlMagoo @brian_armstrong @coinbase Yeah in the time it took to negotiate yield, a whole other issue overtook it in importance, one Coinbase has no say in