For the full frozen window on 2026-07-19, this address sent 706 transactions between 13:02:34 and 23:37:23 UTC. Its recurring shape was a short-lived flash-credit opening followed by DeepBook and other connected calls, often involving DEEP, WAL, and USDC. The evidence resembles bursty automated execution, but it does not establish who or what operated the address.
The defining fact is failure: 526 of 706 eligible transactions failed. The semantic system could attach an asserted execute-swap-route meaning to 188 of the 607 rows used for semantic shares—about 31%. Another 419 rows exposed connected call sequences without a whole-transaction purpose, while 99 stopped too early for a meaningful call-level explanation. An understood transaction is not necessarily a successful one.
Rhythm: rapid bursts, long silences
Across the full history, the median gap was 967 milliseconds, but the 90th-percentile gap was 139.3 seconds and the longest idle period was 47 minutes. The busiest minute was 18:41 UTC, with 33 transactions. The longest consecutive failure run was 56 transactions.
That combination—sub-second spacing during bursts and occasional long pauses—is consistent with a process repeatedly submitting prepared transactions. It does not prove a bot, a person, a trading strategy, or a shared operator. Every one of the 706 transactions paid from the address itself; none was sponsored by another gas owner.
What it attempted
When the system did assert a route meaning, 181 transactions used sui/execute-swap-route/roster-f0111/v1, whose authored description is a DeepBook flash loan routed through Turbos. Seven used a second route variant. The description establishes the composition of the calls, not a filled order, an exchange rate, or a profitable result.
The latest-500 stream shows the same split especially clearly: 147 rows carried the asserted route meaning, while 353 exposed only connected steps. Of those latest 500, 359 failed. Their longest failure run was 33 transactions, compared with a longest successful run of 10.
One illustrative failure is BVJ4i4AZ. It borrowed 500 WAL, passed value through a DeepBook conversion and Turbos-related calls, then stopped with InsufficientCoinBalance. Application effects were rolled back; the sender’s boundary movement was only −0.001424824 SUI for that transaction. The route was attempted, but the record does not establish a fill or completed exchange.
A contrasting row is DUAG7qnV, which completed without an execution error after submitting 500 DEEP to a similarly structured route. The sender’s boundary movement was +0.063718 DEEP and −0.005504436 SUI. Even here, the stored explanation explicitly says the route evidence does not establish a fill, the amount exchanged, or the sender’s receipt of an output. A successful transaction and a proven exchange are different claims.
The largest gas outlier in the latest-500 stream was Fc44Grrw: it spent 300,000,000 MIST, or 0.3 SUI, before failing with InsufficientGas. It had submitted 50 USDC to a six-call composition; the application calls were rolled back.
What moved
These are whole-history sender-boundary movements, reported separately by evidence type:
- Gas: −14.291421004 SUI across 706 transactions.
- Holding balance: −14.285501518 SUI across 706 transactions. This overlaps with the gas charge and must not be added to it.
- Holding balance: +32.079073 DEEP across 135 transactions.
- Holding balance: +7.041596595 WAL across 42 transactions.
- Holding balance: +0.03847 USDC across 2 transactions.
The value flows show substantial SUI expenditure alongside incoming DEEP, WAL, and USDC, but there are no prices and no cross-asset accounting. These movements do not establish profit, loss, or that any particular asset was exchanged for another. In the failed transactions, application movements were rolled back even when calls had already been reached.
The character of the address
Across ten hours, this address repeatedly assembled flash-credit and order-book route compositions at burst cadence, paid its own gas, and failed often enough that failure is more informative than the route label. The clearest supported description is an on-chain identity repeatedly attempting multi-step swap-like routes, with only a minority receiving an asserted whole-transaction meaning and many attempts ending before the intended composition completed.
Useful exits are BVJ4i4AZ for a failed route, DUAG7qnV for a route that completed without proving an exchange, Fc44Grrw for the 0.3-SUI gas outlier, and sui/execute-swap-route/roster-f0111/v1 for the reusable route interpretation.