Sui's mainnet halted for the second consecutive day on Thursday, May 29, 2026 — the latest sign that a single software release has yet to be fully remediated two days after it first brought the network down.
At 12:19 UTC, the Sui team posted to X that "mainnet is currently experiencing a network stall. Network activity may be paused at this time." At 15:42 UTC — three hours and twenty-three minutes later — they confirmed the network was back and disclosed the shared cause of both days' stalls.
"Both today's and yesterday's halts are due to the interaction of the 1.72 release, which introduced Address Balances, and gas charging logic," the team wrote. The Wednesday fix, they explained, had been an interim measure — not a full resolution. "Yesterday's implemented fix was an interim measure designed to restore functionality to the network while the Sui Core Team worked on a long-term solution. The interim fix had a known issue with a low probability of causing a halt. This morning, the network hit a variant of the known issue and halted."
Validators have now implemented what the team calls a long-term solution. No formal post-mortem has been published.
The double failure adds to a growing reliability ledger. Sui has logged three significant outages in 2026 alone, including a January event that caused six hours of downtime. The pattern has resurfaced an uncomfortable parallel: Sui was marketed as a next-generation L1 that would avoid the instability that shadowed Solana's early years. In practice, it is accumulating an outage record that looks much the same.
The timing is punishing for SUI holders. The token was trading at approximately $0.89 at the time of the Decrypt report — down 20% on the week and 83% below its January 2025 all-time high of $5.35, according to Decrypt's reporting on market data. That makes SUI one of the five worst-performing top-100 assets over the past seven days.
Review flag reason: The market cap figure (~$3.6B) cited in the brief could not be confirmed from a named primary source. Decrypt's article, which serves as the primary source for this piece, does not state market cap. I have omitted that figure rather than publish an unverified number. The editor should confirm the market cap from a primary API or exchange source and add it, or accept the piece without it.