Cardano, Polkadot, Sui and Other Networks Hit by Separate Funding Problems
Kraken has recorded a series of cryptocurrency funding disruptions across multiple blockchain networks in September, with deposits or withdrawals affected on Cardano, Polkadot, Sui, MultiversX and Moonbeam/Moonriver in separate incidents.
The status history does not indicate a single exchange-wide funding failure. Instead, the incidents have generally been isolated to individual blockchain gateways, with Kraken repeatedly stating that other funding methods remained operational.
The latest cluster nevertheless makes the exchange’s funding infrastructure worth watching because the interruptions have occurred across several unrelated networks within a relatively short period.
On Sept. 15, Kraken reported that Cardano withdrawals could be delayed because of an issue affecting the ADA funding gateway. The incident began at 21:35 UTC, moved into monitoring at 21:55 UTC and was declared resolved at 23:08 UTC.
That means the incident remained open for approximately one hour and 33 minutes rather than around 33 minutes.
Cardano was not the only network affected that day. Kraken also reported funding delays involving Solana and Avalanche, while a Base network funding incident began later on Sept. 15 and was resolved early the following day.
The more persistent problems appeared elsewhere.
Kraken opened a Polkadot funding incident at 10:05 UTC on Sept. 11 after detecting delays affecting DOT deposits and withdrawals. A fix was identified later that day, but the incident did not move into monitoring until the afternoon and was not declared resolved until 07:48 UTC on Sept. 14.
The Polkadot incident therefore remained open for almost 70 hours.
Sui experienced two separate problems within days. One began at 06:23 UTC on Sept. 11 and was resolved at 10:03 UTC, lasting about three hours and 40 minutes.
A second Sui funding incident began early on Sept. 12 and remained active until the morning of Sept. 14, lasting more than 50 hours.
Moonbeam and Moonriver also experienced a combined funding disruption beginning at 11:38 UTC on Sept. 9. Kraken initially warned that both deposits and withdrawals could be delayed. Withdrawals were restored the same day, while deposit delays remained until the incident was finally resolved at 14:21 UTC on Sept. 10.
That disruption lasted more than 26 hours.
MultiversX has appeared twice in the recent history. An EGLD funding incident on Sept. 10 lasted from 13:33 UTC until 19:09 UTC, while another MultiversX issue was opened at 13:58 UTC on Sept. 16 and remained listed as degraded on Kraken’s status page into Sept. 17.
In each of these cases, Kraken described the problem as affecting the relevant cryptocurrency’s funding gateway rather than its wider exchange infrastructure.
That distinction matters. Kraken’s trading platforms, APIs and other funding methods continued operating during most of the incidents, meaning users trading unrelated assets were not experiencing a general platform outage.
It also separates the pattern from incidents where an entire blockchain or exchange infrastructure layer goes offline, such as the Liquid Network disruption that affected the underlying network itself rather than one exchange’s connection to it.
Kraken Has Also Managed a Broader Cosmos-Linked Funding Cluster
The single-network incidents have occurred alongside a separate, much broader funding problem that began on Sept. 4.
Kraken temporarily paused deposits and warned of withdrawal delays across more than 20 networks, including Akash, Babylon, Celestia, Cosmos Hub, dYdX, Dymension, Fetch.ai, Injective, Juno, Kava, Neutron, Osmosis, Sei EVM, Terra and THORChain.
The grouping was heavily concentrated around Cosmos-linked networks.
Kraken gradually restored some services and said it was working to safely restore the remaining affected chains. Babylon deposits and withdrawals were confirmed as processing normally again on Sept. 14.
Kraken has not publicly described all of the September network-specific incidents as having one common cause.
It would therefore be premature to link the Cardano, Sui, Polkadot, EGLD and Moonbeam issues to the broader Cosmos funding event.
Similarly, the recurrence does not establish a security breach. Kraken’s status notices describe gateway and processing problems rather than compromised wallets or stolen customer assets.
The distinction is particularly important given recent incidents involving cross-chain infrastructure, where genuine vulnerabilities created unbacked assets or exposed funds. Kraken has made no comparable disclosure about the recent funding interruptions.
The exchange has also been tightening controls around crypto transfers for other reasons. Recent Kraken biometric checks introduced additional identity verification for some sensitive account actions, illustrating how funding reliability and funding security have become separate operational challenges for exchanges.
The Pattern Matters More Than Any Individual Outage
None of these incidents on its own looks particularly unusual for a large cryptocurrency exchange.
Supporting hundreds of assets means maintaining connections to hundreds of systems that do not behave the same way.
Bitcoin has one architecture. Cardano has another. Polkadot, Sui, MultiversX and Cosmos-family chains all have different node software, transaction structures, upgrade cycles and operational dependencies.
If one chain changes software, falls behind, experiences abnormal transaction behavior or requires wallet maintenance, an exchange can disable that specific gateway without affecting the rest of the platform.
That is actually evidence of isolation working as intended.
The interesting part is frequency.
When several unrelated gateways start generating incidents within days of one another, there are two possibilities worth watching.
The first is simply statistical. Kraken supports enough blockchains that some funding systems will almost always require maintenance, particularly during a period of network upgrades and heavier market activity.
The second is that some shared layer inside the exchange’s funding infrastructure is creating more frequent failures.
That could theoretically involve node management, wallet software, custody infrastructure, transaction-monitoring systems or third-party services. There is currently no public evidence identifying any of those as the common factor.
Modern exchange infrastructure contains more shared components than users usually see. The same trend is visible in broader blockchain infrastructure, where wallet, banking and settlement layers increasingly sit behind one consumer interface.
That makes status-page patterns useful.
If Cardano fails once, it is probably a Cardano gateway issue.
If Cardano, Sui, Polkadot, Base, Solana, Avalanche and MultiversX all produce separate funding incidents in a short window, the cumulative history becomes something worth tracking even when every individual problem is eventually resolved.
The duration matters too.
A 90-minute Cardano interruption is operational noise for most customers. A Polkadot incident running nearly three days or a Sui disruption lasting more than two days can become materially more important for users waiting to move assets onto or off the exchange.
That risk becomes especially relevant during volatile markets. A trader who cannot deposit an asset cannot immediately sell it on Kraken, while a user unable to withdraw cannot move funds into self-custody or another venue.
Exchanges also have good reasons to be conservative. When transaction validity or network state is uncertain, temporarily delaying a withdrawal is generally safer than allowing an incorrect transaction to leave custody.
The growing use of blockchain monitoring infrastructure adds another layer of automated checks around transfers, although there is no indication that Kraken’s current technical incidents are related to AML screening.
For now, the evidence points to multiple contained funding problems rather than one systemic Kraken outage.
But that does not make the cluster meaningless.
The next useful signal would be another run of incidents affecting unrelated networks, especially if several gateways fail simultaneously or if the same assets begin experiencing repeated disruptions.
If that happens, Kraken’s status history may start telling a broader infrastructure story.
Until then, the more accurate conclusion is narrower: Kraken’s exchange has remained broadly operational, but the reliability of individual blockchain funding gateways has been unusually active throughout September.
Shane Neagle is a financial markets analyst and digital assets journalist specializing in cryptocurrencies, memecoins, prediction markets, and blockchain-based financial systems. His work focuses on market structure, incentive design, liquidity dynamics, and how speculative behavior emerges across decentralized platforms.
He closely covers emerging crypto narratives, including memecoin ecosystems, on-chain activity, and the role of prediction markets in pricing political, economic, and technological outcomes. His analysis examines how capital flows, trader psychology, and platform design interact to create rapid market cycles across Web3 environments.
Alongside digital assets, Shane follows broader fintech and online trading developments, particularly where traditional financial infrastructure intersects with blockchain technology. His research-driven approach emphasizes understanding why markets behave the way they do, rather than short-term price movements, helping readers navigate fast-evolving crypto and speculative markets with clearer context.