Binance Reports Hourly Deposits Surpassing Withdrawals After Security Incident

Binance reports a short-term improvement

Binance said in an X post that hourly deposits had overtaken withdrawals by 03:00 UTC on November 3, 2026. The exchange described the development as evidence of improving user activity and stabilizing flows.

The post did not disclose the total value of deposits, the total value of withdrawals or the resulting net balance. It also did not explain whether the figures included all supported assets, only spot accounts, institutional customers or transfers between wallets controlled by Binance.

That makes the announcement an operational snapshot rather than a complete assessment of the exchange’s financial position. An hourly period can turn positive because of trading activity, transfers between accounts, market movements or a relatively small change in customer behavior. It does not show whether withdrawals had exceeded deposits over the preceding days or whether the exchange’s cumulative asset position had recovered.

The timing nevertheless matters. The update followed a period of intense scrutiny after a security incident that disrupted normal withdrawal activity and prompted questions about the movement of funds connected with Binance.

The incident remains central to the flow data

In its security incident update, Binance said that the event had an estimated impact of about $6.3 billion. The company said withdrawals were temporarily suspended while deposits remained operational. Binance also said user funds were safe and promised an updated proof of reserves.

That background gives the new hourly figure added significance. If users are again depositing more than they are withdrawing, the change could suggest that some customers are returning to normal trading activity or moving assets back onto the platform. For an exchange facing a confidence test, even a narrow improvement in flows can help support the argument that operations are stabilizing.

However, the suspension of withdrawals complicates comparisons across the period. Deposits continuing while withdrawals were restricted would not necessarily represent normal market behavior. Once withdrawals resumed, customers could have had reasons to move assets into self custody, to other exchanges or to wallets associated with the security event.

The new figure also does not identify the assets involved. A positive hourly result driven mainly by one stablecoin would carry a different meaning from broad-based deposits across Bitcoin, ether and major stablecoins. Binance has not provided that breakdown in the cited update.

Supporters point to movement away from exchanges

Changpeng Zhao offered a more favorable interpretation in a Binance Square post. Citing public reports, Zhao said only about 6% to 10% of withdrawals went to other centralized exchanges. He said most funds moved to self custody wallets that had not interacted with decentralized exchanges.

That interpretation suggests the withdrawals may have reflected a temporary preference for personal custody rather than a broad decision to leave Binance for competing platforms. If correct, it would limit the direct competitive benefit to rival centralized exchanges and could mean that some users remain open to returning once concerns ease.

The distinction is important for the wider exchange market. Transfers to rival platforms can indicate a loss of market share, while transfers to self custody may reflect a broader response to security risk. In the latter case, Binance could retain some users and trading volume even if customers temporarily reduce their reliance on centralized platforms.

Zhao’s comments, however, are an interpretation of reported flows rather than a full customer-level accounting. They do not establish how much money returned to Binance, how long assets remained in self custody or whether those wallets belonged to existing customers.

On-chain figures challenge the positive reading

Bitquery’s on-chain analysis reported about $6.3 billion in transfers involving Binance-linked wallets during the incident and said about $2.7 billion had been frozen. The analysis also noted that, despite the later hourly improvement, the broader period after withdrawals reopened remained cumulatively negative.

That is the strongest challenge to Binance’s framing. A single positive hour can coexist with a substantial net outflow across several days. If the cumulative balance remains negative, the exchange may be seeing an early stabilization signal rather than a completed recovery.

Bitquery also cautioned that wallet-flow figures do not definitively establish customer withdrawals or prove anything about solvency. Wallets can be used for operational purposes, and transactions may involve internal movements, market-making activity or assets held on behalf of different entities. The same limitation applies in the opposite direction to Binance’s announcement: exchange-level flow data without definitions cannot independently demonstrate that users have regained confidence.

The next test is persistence. Investors and customers will need to see whether deposits continue to exceed withdrawals over multiple days, whether the pattern appears across major assets and whether Binance publishes its promised proof of reserves.

For now, Binance’s statement is best understood as evidence of a potentially improving short-term flow trend. It is not yet evidence that the security incident has been fully resolved, that cumulative outflows have reversed or that the exchange’s broader financial position has been independently confirmed.