On May 29, the official Sui team acknowledged on X that the mainnet experienced another network stall, stating that the core team is "actively investigating" and promised to provide updates later. This marks the second shutdown within 24 hours: the previous night on May 28, Sui had just gone through a similar network stagnation. The research brief also emphasized that the current two incidents are only defined as network stalls at the official level, not confirmed security incidents, but aside from "there is indeed a stall and it is being addressed," key details remain blank—how long this failure lasted, what caused it, and whether it had a real impact on user funds have not been explained by the officials. In a narrative of a new public chain touted for high performance and high throughput, expected to support heavy-load applications like DeFi and gaming, the image of two consecutive days of downtime hits the word "reliability" more intuitively than any technical white paper. The market can only piece together the truth between brief announcements and scattered leaks, with the real question hanging in the air: will these two consecutive failures pull Sui from a "performance showcase" back to "experimental infrastructure," or is this merely a magnified technical episode that reshapes the valuation logic and expected boundaries regarding Sui?

Two Shutdowns in 24 Hours: What Happened to the Sui Mainnet

According to the research brief's analysis, the story begins on May 28. On this day, the Sui mainnet was reported to experience a network stall, but currently, almost all details come from a single source: it is claimed that this stagnation lasted about 5–6 hours, during which nodes could not properly advance blocks, and the problem was suspected to relate to a crash bug or gas billing anomaly in version 1.72. The network was restored only after validators upgraded and restarted it. This entire narrative has yet to receive an official confirmation; the precise start and end times of the downtime, repair steps, and whether deeper security mechanisms were triggered remain silence from official channels.

The event was brought into the spotlight the following day. On May 29, the Sui team publicly confirmed on X that the mainnet had experienced another network stall, clearly stating that the core team is investigating and promising to update later, but did not provide details on how long the stall lasted, when the network fully recovered, or the root cause. The research brief cited the same source to add that this failure allegedly lasted a shorter time, the network has completely recovered, and "there was no loss of user funds"; the problem may be related to the gas billing bug in version 1.72, which was fixed by the validators' upgrades, and the safe shutdown mechanism "worked as expected"—but these details are currently labeled as unverified information. Without the official disclosure of the exact duration, recovery process, root cause, and whether there were any financial losses from both failures, the external world can only confirm the temporal fact of "two shutdowns within 24 hours," and whether they constitute a continuous technical causal chain or independent incidental accidents remains the most unresolved piece of the puzzle when judging Sui's reliability.

The Paused On-Chain World: How DeFi and Gaming Were Affected

When the consensus layer suffered network stalls on May 28 and 29, the production of new blocks was forced to stop, and transactions at the mainnet level may temporarily have been unable to be packaged or confirmed. The entire chain, which claims to have high throughput, has essentially been hit with a "pause button." For end users, transfers displayed as "pending confirmation" in wallets, orders stuck on the chain, and game actions that didn't respond are neither clear failures nor completions, just a suspended state of uncertainty; the longer the time drags on, the stronger the sense of anxiety.

This has a particularly direct impact on high-frequency interaction scenarios represented by DeFi protocols and blockchain games. Operations such as market making, lending, and staking originally relied on continuous block production to settle risks and refresh positions; a sudden halt means strategies cannot be adjusted and position statuses are difficult to confirm in time. On the gaming side, from daily tasks to PVP battles requiring frequent on-chain actions, network stalls could turn every player's click into an "unresponsive" black box. More troubling is the current lack of authoritative data showing whether specific liquidations or financial losses occurred during the stagnation period; project teams cannot easily report safety or provide substantiated accident explanations, forcing them to cope with users' inquiries in an information vacuum. For developers and teams, this "instant stoppage" itself is a soft blow: the product schedules originally planned around the high-performance narrative must be slowed down, multi-chain deployment, risk control redundancy, and infrastructure dependencies all need to be reassessed, and whether to continue viewing Sui as a core supporting chain will naturally become a question that must be answered in the next round of strategic discussions.

Multiple Outages in 18 Months? The Shadow of Reliability Grows Deeper

Putting the consecutive two-day "shutdown" on May 28 and 29 into a longer timeline provides a more intuitive sense of pressure. The research brief cites a single source indicating that between November 2024 and May 2026, Sui experienced five "significant failures" within approximately 18 months, including a suspected mainnet downtime lasting about six hours in January 2026. However, this statistic currently neither has official endorsement nor lacks cross-verification from multiple parties; even the complete timeline, impact scope, and technical causes of these five incidents have been clearly marked as "incomplete information, do not fill in arbitrarily," and technical details of the January outage remain vague due to the lack of a complete post-mortem. In other words, what the market currently holds are only a series of timestamps awaiting verification, yet it must search for patterns between these timestamps.

For a public chain attempting to complete an "infrastructure leap," such a pattern can be deadly. The industry consensus is simple: true underlying facilities should exist in a state of "long-term unawareness"; a single bug can be forgiven, but a group of outages and stalls will be viewed as accumulating reliability risk. Sui has been packaged as a supporting network for high-performance, high-throughput applications (including DeFi and gaming), which inherently lowers its tolerance for failures—when the mainnet experiences two stalls within 24 hours and is placed within the narrative framework of "five significant failures in 18 months," even if this framework is currently only a version from a single source, developers and institutions find it challenging to ignore completely: they must assume the worst-case scenario, reassess their trust discounts regarding the Sui performance myth, and treat "whether this chain can remain stable online in the long run" as a hard condition that must be directly addressed in the next round of architectural deliberations.

Official Response and Safety Valve: Is Transparency Enough?

On May 29, Sui's official statement on X was very restrained: acknowledging that the mainnet encountered a network stall, and the core team is "actively investigating," promising to update progress later. But by the end of the day, the only standard statements available externally were these few lines—without mentioning the approximate duration of the stagnation, without an authoritative timeline on whether it has fully recovered, and without a clear statement on whether user funds were affected. More critically, this was already the second shutdown following the one on the 28th; as of May 29, the official has yet to release a complete accident report or technical review regarding these two consecutive outages, leaving the market to piece together the story from brief statements and scattered leaks.

In contrast to this "official announcement" level of message is a narrative from a single source cited by the research brief: the current issues were suspected to relate to a bug in version 1.72, which was repaired through validator upgrades, while the internally designed safe shutdown mechanism in Sui "triggered as expected" during this event, thus avoiding larger-scale chain reactions—none of these details, including this explanation, have received backing from official technical documents or lengthy post-mortems, and can only be regarded as unverified information. In this information structure, validators and project teams might fill in some context through private channels, but what ordinary users and external institutions see more is the consecutive two-day downtime and the "five failures within 18 months" single-source statistics, forcing them to make emotional judgments between incomplete facts and unverified explanations. As long as the official remains at the lowest disclosure level of "confirming failures + conducting investigations" without quickly providing verifiable technical details and clear boundaries of responsibility, the trust discount surrounding Sui's reliability is unlikely to be truly erased, even if the network has resumed operation.

From Speed Competition to Trust Exam: The Next Path for Sui

For Sui, these two days feel more like a narrative turning point: from early emphases on high TPS and being a "performance showcase" for next-generation application scenarios, it has been forced into the spotlight to undergo scrutiny over "two consecutive days of network stalls." The "five failures in 18 months" statistic from a single source, lacking systematic official responses, can easily overlay with the two stalls on May 28 and 29, interpreted externally as a shift from a speed competition to a trust exam. However, at the same time, the research brief repeatedly emphasizes that many key details in this round of events remain an information void: the specific duration and recovery time of the stagnation, root cause, and whether user funds were lost are labeled as "to be verified," with a clear line drawn against fabricating conclusions; as of May 29, 2026, the official has only confirmed on X the occurrence of network stalls and that an investigation is underway, without releasing any post-mortem or complete technical report, leaving the market to piece together in such an uncertain information environment. What is truly worth paying attention to are the variables in the coming days: first, can Sui present a technically coherent, externally verifiable root cause disclosure regarding the faults on May 28 and 29, clarifying the scope of impact and responsibility boundaries; second, can it simultaneously provide clear paths for repairs and preventing recurrence rather than just staying at the level of principle reassurance; and third, over a longer time window, can the mainnet maintain stable operation, allowing these two outages to be categorized historically as "growing pains" rather than "structural defects." For readers, it is crucial to strictly distinguish currently confirmed facts from the leaks surrounding version 1.72, downtime, and fund safety that come from a single source, and to refrain from making extreme judgments based on emotions or rumors until more formal information is disclosed. Ultimately, the real factor that will determine whether Sui can turn the page is not which version is currently the loudest but whether the officials can produce a publicly scrutinized replay, fulfill subsequent technical commitments, and, over time, reprove this chain's reliability.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。