GitHub status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of GitHub reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by GitHub users through our website.

• Website Down (57%)
• Errors (30%)
• Sign in (14%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent GitHub outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Inverness	Website Down	9 days ago
Quito	Sign in	9 days ago
Junín	Errors	9 days ago
Guadalajara	Errors	9 days ago
Paris	Website Down	9 days ago
Quito	Errors	9 days ago

Full 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.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Rajat Gupta (@0xRajat) reported 29 seconds ago

  github actions is down again. the part that worries me is how quickly this starts feeling normal.

• 
  Christian Paulsen (@cpaulsenn) reported 40 seconds ago

  @gregisenberg Or you could just learn to use Github. It actually isn't that hard to learn. Why do we need to make solutions for problems, where you need to use your brain?

• 
  ARAMEON (@NeoAramean) reported 4 minutes ago

  @gregisenberg Why is this needed? The same people that are getting into software now are vibecoding and the harness they use is perfectly capable of using *** and push code to github. A non issue really

• 
  Alonso G (@CryptoDegenTopG) reported 6 minutes ago

  @XPeterKappes @bot @cursor_ai Same issue here. Mine is connected with my GitHub and I am getting the same error

• 
  Simon Lee (@smoon_lee) reported 7 minutes ago

  @iam_edh I was, it broke like 2 hours ago, so I gave up. I was happily building and testing and the BAM, GitHub goes down

• 
  Robert DeVore (@deviorobert) reported 9 minutes ago

  As GitHub is having issues (again), I am reminded about what could have been in an alternate universe 🤠

• 
  ArRENCEAI (@ArRENCEAI) reported 10 minutes ago

  Fr3n F4ct0ry out free on github had a few errors that were screwing it up. I released a bunch of updates last night and this morning to fix it up. The biggest change is that 4 looping lab results dont end the iterations now, instead 2 loops force a non-llm adjustment injection

• 
  Mike Leiter (@MikeLeiterDev) reported 15 minutes ago

  @imh_habib Poor Copilot never gets the love! I will say that Github Copilot has some features I can miss on other harnesses, but that's almost exclusively related to VSCode integration, and we need to be moving more toward a chat interface with CLI in the background. Copilot 365 chat is absolute trash if you leave it on auto mode, but if your subscription allows you to choose GPT 5.6 in the drop-down, it's fine - maybe even good!

• 
  Robby Seventeen (@Robby_Seventeen) reported 18 minutes ago

  GitHub actions seems to have so many issues lately. Who is self hosting alternatives and what's specs do you run.

• 
  Chris Dupres 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 (@blaktron) reported 21 minutes ago

  @github despite having months left on our enterprise agreement our github organization has been disabled for 2 days with no access to be able to get in and even see whats going on to fix it. We have put in multiple support tickets and heard nothing back. Please help.

• 
  Vikram (@vchennai2) reported 22 minutes ago

  How is your latest Github outage going? I might go on a walk

• 
  Michael Huynh (@TheDegenBoii) reported 25 minutes ago

  How did the attackers all move at once? Because on August 19, @cosmoslabs_io pushed the fix to public GitHub with a note that read, and I am quoting, "This release contains critical security fixes. This release is breaking." No private warning to the chains running the code. The patch WAS the disclosure. If you could read GitHub, you had the map.

• 
  Benjamistan (@benstanley) reported 25 minutes ago

  Another day, another @github outage.

• 
  Abhishek (@raftywate) reported 26 minutes ago

  GitHub is experiencing issues again?

• 
  Kotte (@Gustafssonkotte) reported 29 minutes ago

  The fix went public three days before the theft. Nobody told the chains it was urgent. Cosmos EVM is a shared piece of code that lets a Cosmos chain run Ethereum-style contracts. Four networks imported it. None of them wrote the bug, and none of them could have found it by auditing their own code. On August 19 a patch appeared on GitHub. The notes said it contained important security fixes. It was not marked critical anywhere public, and the chains running that code got no private heads up. Three days later: - KiiChain: 148.3 million KII drained across 18 repeats, halted at block 9,355,723 - TAC: 2.98 billion tokens pulled from a staking contract, halted at block 24,671,475 - MANTRA and Nesa stopped early and lost nothing The stolen KII was worth over $9 million on paper. Dumped into a thin book it came back as $1.6 million. Stealing was the easy half. Today, four days after the drains, Cosmos Labs finally named versions. Anything running below v0.6.2 or v0.7.2 should halt and upgrade now. The same post asked chains to send in their security contacts if they had not already. That last line is the actual story. The team maintaining the module does not have a list of everyone running it. A fix published in the open reaches the attacker instantly and the operator maybe never. Still checking two things: how many live chains sit below those versions right now, and whether the Saga loss in January came through the same code path.

• 
  farhan (@oogatwt) reported 30 minutes ago

  github is so slow now. i mean understandable but f-

• 
  Her Excellency (@DorcasChidinma) reported 30 minutes ago

  Is GitHub down?

• 
  Gilmo (@0xgilllee) reported 33 minutes ago

  A deeper look into PONS' mechanism $PONS has been everywhere on my X feed lately. Bags, burns, $PUMP comparisons, people regretting early sells. What caught me was the fee model. It’s easy to track. Pons earns fees, buys $PONS, then burns it. What’s happening? @ponsdotfamily is a token launchpad on Robinhood Chain. People launch and trade tokens directly from their wallets, while Pons earns fees from each trade. Recent numbers: + $PONS ran from around $20M MC to $80m+ + daily fees reached around $140K + 28.79% of supply has been burned + Pons reported $2.85b+ volume from Robinhood Chain’s $25b DEX volume in around one month That’s over 11% of the chain’s DEX volume. Pons is starting to look like one of the main fee plays on Robinhood Chain. Quick recap In mid-August, $PONS traded at around 0.7x annualized revenue, far below $PUMP. Then Uniswap launched its own launchpad and $PONS reportedly dropped around 78% from the top. Pons recovered market share soon after. By late August: + 28.79% supply burned + ~$140k 24H fees + ~56% launchpad market share + ~$76m MC + ~$4m all-time fees That’s when I started paying more attention. The fees were real, and a big part was flowing back into $PONS. What drives $PONS? The model is pretty direct. More launches -> more trades -> more fees -> more $PONS buybacks and burns. Current fee flow: 1. Each trade pays 1% 2. 70% goes to creators 3. 30% goes to Pons 4. 80% of Pons’ share buys and burns $PONS 5. 20% funds the team and operations I mainly watch new launches, trading volume and buybacks. Robinhood Chain gets busier, Pons earns more fees, and more $PONS gets burned. There are claims that all trading fees from $PONS itself are burned. I’d check that part on-chain. The docs are clearer around the 80/20 launchpad fee model. 1) How Pons works today Launch a token and you get: + 1b supply + Uniswap V3 pool with WETH + locked liquidity + trading right away Graduation happens around 4.2 ETH in the pool. The first two blocks also have anti-snipe limits. After that, trading runs normally. 2) What about V2? V2 is being built on GitHub. Tokens will start on a bonding curve before moving to Uniswap V4 with stronger liquidity locks. The current product runs on the V3 model. V2 is the next step. 3) The $PONS loop Token launches
-> Users trade
-> 1% fee
-> 70% to creator
-> 30% to Pons
-> 80% buys $PONS
-> Burn
-> Supply drops Creators get paid in ETH. I like that setup because their revenue stays separate from the token they launched. One detail matters here. The 80% buyback ratio still works as a protocol policy through TWAP. The team plans to make it immutable later. According to Ponsinomics, TWAP buys happen roughly every 15 minutes before the $PONS goes to a burn address. 4) Why did $PONS run so hard? A few drivers: + nearly 29% of supply has already been burned. + more attention brings more launchpad volume, fees, and buybacks. + $PONS started from a low revenue multiple, so strong fee data quickly changed how the market priced it. + RH has around $25b in volume, with Pons taking a decent share. For me, fees and market share matter more than listing rumors. 5) More is building around Pons There are also projects using creator fees for $PONS buybacks, burns, airdrops, raffles, and liquidity. Pons Dividends pays holders in $PONS, while others are exploring lending for $PONS holders. Useful extras, but the main engine remains the fee and buyback model. Where does Pons sit on Robinhood Chain? I see Pons as the main token launchpad on Robinhood Chain right now. $CASHCAT is closer to the meme bet. $PONS is closer to the platform earning fees from the whole game. What I like: + strong market share + recovered after Uniswap entered + low valuation compared with revenue + direct exposure to launchpad activity What I’m watching: + how long current volume lasts + the 80% buyback policy + wash trading + RH activity moving into other sectors @theunipcs mentioned $200m as a possible target, around 10% of $PUMP’s valuation. I can see the case if fees stay strong next quarter. That matters more than any listing rumor. What's my thoughts? I like $PONS because the money flow is easy to follow. Trading creates fees, fees buy $PONS, then supply gets burned. But $PONS already moved from around $20m to $80m MC pretty fast. So I’m watching 7-day fees, burn rate, protocol ETH balance, market share and buyback policy. For me, $PONS comes down to one thing: can Pons keep this level of activity going? If yes, the fee and burn model stays interesting. If volume fades, the whole setup looks very different.

• 
  Neo (@neoworldlife) reported 33 minutes ago

  @WillemJaap_ @github I mean how often does a VM go down if monitored properly?

• 
  Tino Wening (@TinoWening) reported 37 minutes ago

  @Howaboua I’m pretty cautious when it comes to relying on third-party cloud systems. Think of GitHub, AWS, and CloudFlare outages. What happens if there’s an outage right when you’re in the zone? I think a local backup system makes sense if you don’t have much trust in third-party providers. It’s always a balance between dependence and self-maintenance. With the latter, you’re in control and can decide what happens, when, and how.

• 
  coe0718 (@IaMuNk20) reported 40 minutes ago

  Apparently GitHub is having problems yet again 🙄

• 
  shaki (@shakiXBT) reported 41 minutes ago

  one more github actions outage and i end it all

• 
  Ryan Thomas (@Cheese_Power) reported 41 minutes ago

  @_xDeJesus re: CVE-2026-62911 - I think the unauth claim is wrong. I opened an issue on the github repo, but the VRED writeup demos it requiring a lowpriv user. PetitPotam uses the EFSRPC interfaces which have required low-priv auth since 2021

• 
  Dark Energy (@MrAnthonyDR) reported 45 minutes ago

  @bot Your github connector is broken - please fix it!

• 
  E. Kelvin Odi (@itsjustkevs) reported 45 minutes ago

  Is GitHub actions down or something?

• 
  Dhruv Patel (@dppatel_) reported 52 minutes ago

  An AI agent has been fixing bugs at @aftersell for 6 months. It costs us $400/mo. Meet Watson👇 We audited all of our engineering tickets last year and 35% weren't code bugs. They were config questions, duplicates of bugs we already knew about, confusing UI, etc. And then the real bugs? The fixes are always easy but investigation was always the inefficient part. Watson now finds and squashes bugs and has started to implement features fully autonomously. Here's how it works: 1) Triage - is this worth looking into? Watson classifies every ticket before it digs in - is it a config issue, known issue, does it need more info? Output is structured data so downstream stages branch off of a real contract instead of parsing what a model is saying. Helps a lot with latency, cost, and performance. 2) Investigate - what happened? This is the core of why we built Watson - it'll reconstruct the entire event timeline, read the codebase, pull cloud logging, etc. And we built this all directly on top of the Claude Platform Client SDK so we can have full control over prompt caching, per-tool call caps, cost accounting, etc. It's a super powerful way to control cost - on a "warm run" - 98% of inputs are from the cache. 3) Implement - write to the codebase Watson directly writes to the repo, makes a PR, etc. It also monitors and reviews PR comments from reviewers. This is the simplest part - writing the code is so simple when you've gotten all of the context from triaging and investigation. 4) Memory - self improving loop (MUST HAVE) Watson has a persistent memory mounted via GCS Fuse. Every time Watson is invoked it brings back findings and artifacts. We're layering it into episodic (past investigations), semantic (distilled patterns and playbooks), and reflective (what investigation strategies actually work on this codebase). Watson integrates into everything we have - all internal chats, support systems, Linear, Github, etc. It's constantly improving and every single Linear ticket we have gets looked at by Watson. Our first run was ~$50 and now it costs us $3.87 per ticket all in. Comment below if you want me to write up a guide for how to build your own Watson.

• 
  Ardi Gashi (@Ardsome) reported 53 minutes ago

  Update: shipped v0.2.0. Single block ablation has a real blind spot: two pieces of context that are each harmless alone can still flip the decision together. Added a cheap screen for that, sample a few random subsets, and when one flips the decision, narrow down to the minimal responsible group instead of testing every possible pair. Also added a hard cap on real model calls per run, so cost is never a surprise. Both live now on npm and GitHub.

• 
  Vincent e/acc (@VincentShipsIt) reported 56 minutes ago

  @grok imagine the @github team state right now. show me an ultra realistic picture of the team fixing the outage.

• 
  Thet Naing (@ThetNaingML) reported 57 minutes ago

  Another day, another GitHub outage 🫠

• 
  November (@Nov_006) reported 58 minutes ago

  @ekemini58110 GitHub Enterprise Server is probably the only solution...Your own infrastructure.