Kraken, Bitget and LBank Also Report GLMR and MOVR Funding Problems
KuCoin has temporarily suspended deposits and withdrawals for Glimmer (GLMR) and Moonriver (MOVR) at the request of the project team, joining several other exchanges experiencing funding problems with the two tokens following their recent migration to Base.
KuCoin announced the suspension on Sept. 10, saying only that it had acted “according to the project team’s request.” The exchange gave no technical explanation or estimated restoration time and, unusually, said it would not publish another announcement when the services become available again.
The restriction initially looked like a routine exchange wallet-maintenance issue. However, a wider check shows similar problems appearing across several trading venues beginning a day earlier.
Kraken opened an incident at 11:38 UTC on Sept. 9 covering both GLMR and MOVR, saying deposits and withdrawals could be delayed while it investigated a funding problem. By 14:06 UTC, Kraken had restored withdrawals but said deposits could still face delays. Its status page continues to classify both Moonbeam (GLMR) on Base and Moonriver (MOVR) on Base as experiencing degraded performance.
Bitget also restricted the assets on Sept. 9. It suspended both deposits and withdrawals for MOVR on Base from 11:55 UTC, describing the reason as wallet maintenance. Seventeen minutes later, it announced the suspension of GLMR withdrawals on Base for the same stated reason. Bitget said the restoration times would be announced separately.
LBank went further, suspending deposits and withdrawals for both GLMR and MOVR on Base at 12:30 UTC on Sept. 9. Its notice did not provide a reason for the interruption.
The overlapping restrictions are significant because GLMR and MOVR underwent major network migrations only weeks ago.
Moonbeam announced on July 3 that GLMR would leave its original Polkadot parachain environment and migrate at a 1:1 ratio to an ERC-20 token on Base. The project simultaneously announced a strategic pivot toward infrastructure for autonomous AI agents.
Moonriver followed on July 7, with the project announcing a full MOVR migration to Base and instructing self-custody holders to move their tokens by July 31.
Centralized exchanges handled those conversions for their customers.
Bybit, for example, stopped supporting GLMR and MOVR deposits and withdrawals on their original networks in July and opened Base deposits and withdrawals on July 22. Binance similarly discontinued Moonbeam and Moonriver mainnet support and migrated both assets to Base.
KuCoin completed its own 1:1 swap of GLMR, MOVR and Moonwell (WELL) by July 31. It said at the time that deposits and withdrawals had reopened and that it would thereafter support only the new Base-based versions of the tokens.
The original networks have effectively entered wind-down mode. Moonbeam’s official announcement channel said that, from Aug. 1, Moonbeam and Moonriver were operating in maintenance mode: block production continued, but normal user transactions were disabled. Holders who missed the July 31 migration deadline were instead directed to a 60-day late-claim procedure.
That means the current exchange disruptions concern the post-migration Base assets, rather than a new interruption on the old Moonbeam or Moonriver networks.
There is also no clear evidence at this stage of a general Base outage. Kraken’s status page identifies GLMR and MOVR specifically as degraded while other assets using Base, including Moonwell, remain operational.
Moonbeam’s public news feed has not published an incident report explaining the exchange restrictions. Its latest listed material concerns the project’s new agent-focused strategy, while its GLMR and MOVR migration announcements remain dated July.
There is therefore no confirmed evidence so far of an exploit, stolen funds or compromise of either token. What is confirmed is that several independent exchanges began restricting the same two Base-based assets within a narrow period, and KuCoin explicitly says its action came at the project’s request.
The Timing Makes This More Than Routine Exchange Maintenance
One exchange suspending one token because of “wallet maintenance” usually does not say much.
Four exchanges experiencing problems with the same pair of tokens within roughly a day is harder to dismiss as unrelated operational housekeeping.
The sequence matters.
Kraken reported trouble with GLMR and MOVR at 11:38 UTC on Sept. 9. Bitget followed minutes later with restrictions on MOVR and GLMR. LBank suspended both assets shortly afterward. Then KuCoin announced its full suspension on Sept. 10 and supplied the most interesting detail of all: the project team had requested it.
That does not prove that the GLMR or MOVR contracts have a vulnerability. It certainly does not justify calling this a hack without evidence.
But it shifts the center of gravity away from KuCoin itself.
If this were simply KuCoin maintaining its wallets, the other venues would be coincidence. If Bitget alone called it wallet maintenance, that explanation might be sufficient. Once several exchanges are affected and another says the project requested the shutdown, some common dependency becomes a more plausible area to investigate.
The recent Base migration makes that dependency particularly interesting.
Until July, GLMR and MOVR were native assets of two separate networks. They are now ERC-20 tokens on the same chain, with exchanges having rebuilt their deposit and withdrawal infrastructure around new contract addresses. Bybit lists the new contracts as `0xB384…5459` for GLMR and `0x43fE…2B83` for MOVR.
That transition simplified the network structure, but it also means an issue affecting the new token implementation, exchange integration or some shared piece of project-controlled infrastructure could potentially affect both assets simultaneously.
There is an important counterpoint: transfers of the Base tokens continue to exist on-chain, and Kraken does not show Base itself as broadly impaired. So describing this as a Base network failure would be misleading based on the information currently available.
The bigger issue for Moonbeam is confidence in the migration.
The project made an unusually dramatic transition this summer: it wound down the user-facing functionality of two established Polkadot networks, moved their tokens onto Base and repositioned Moonbeam around an AI-agent infrastructure strategy. Holders and exchanges had to complete a compressed migration before the old networks entered maintenance mode.
Only weeks later, several exchanges are now restricting the migrated assets.
That may ultimately turn out to be a mundane wallet or integration fix. If so, the episode will probably disappear once exchanges restore funding.
But until the project explains why it asked KuCoin to stop transfers — and why several other venues encountered problems with the same assets at nearly the same time — the absence of an explanation is itself the part worth watching.
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.