The first mainnet stall began on May 28, lasting roughly 6 hours and 44 minutes . A crash bug in the gas charging logic—specifically in how the new address-balances code handled "gas smashing," the process of combining input coins to pay transaction fees—caused all validators to enter a crash loop
. Block production stopped entirely. Approximately $1 billion in on-chain assets were temporarily frozen
.
Engineers identified the bug and deployed a patched binary. Once more than two-thirds of staked value upgraded, the network resumed . However, the same root cause triggered a second halt later that day
. The interim fix was designed for speed, not completeness, and the known risk materialized
.
On May 29, after a more stable fix was deployed for the gas charging bug and validators restarted, a separate latent bug surfaced. The validators failed to properly preserve randomness state across the restart, triggering a fresh consensus halt that lasted over three and a half hours . The team then developed and deployed a second patch specifically addressing this state preservation issue. Validators were re-upgraded across May 29–30 until full participation was restored
.
The recovery process was an iterative scramble across three distinct failures:
Throughout the incident, the Sui Foundation emphasized that no user funds were at risk, no committed transactions were reverted, and wallet security mechanisms remained operational .
The outages had an immediate and measurable effect on the SUI token and market sentiment:
In its post-mortem and subsequent announcements, the Foundation outlined several concrete measures to prevent similar incidents :
The Sui Foundation's post-mortem was unusually candid. By admitting it knowingly deployed a risky interim patch, the Foundation exposed a tension familiar to many high-stakes engineering teams: the pressure to restore service fast versus the discipline to ensure a fix is complete . For a blockchain positioning itself for institutional-grade use, the incident raises legitimate questions about upgrade governance, testing rigor, and whether the network's reliability posture matches its ambitions
.
The safeguards announced are a start, but their effectiveness will only become clear the next time Sui faces a complex upgrade under the public spotlight.
Comments
0 comments