For 10 hours and 32 minutes in the frozen Sui window, this address repeated a narrow, price-aware transaction shape 236 times. Every transaction was sponsored by 0xd241…52c826; the address itself never paid gas directly. The activity resembles automated market-position maintenance, but the stored evidence does not establish an operator, strategy, or complete purpose.
A steady rhythm, with one interruption
The complete history contains 236 transactions, from 2026-07-19T13:03:08Z through 2026-07-19T23:35:06Z. The median gap was 31.9 seconds, the mean was about 2 minutes 41 seconds, and the 90th-percentile gap was 6 minutes 31 seconds. The longest pause was 46 minutes 31 seconds. The busiest minute contained four transactions, while the longest uninterrupted run without failure was 171 transactions.
The latest-500 stream is capped by the explorer, but this address has only 236 transactions in the frozen window, so the detailed stream contains its entire history rather than a sample.
Three shapes, one recurring recipe
There was no asserted named behavior across the 236 transactions. Instead, the transactions repeatedly followed the same five-step outline: verify a signed price update, split coins, construct temporal price data, update multiple price values, and then call a market-position function.
The dominant shape appeared 156 times. Its final call was market::execute_decrease_market_order_v3_1, as in 2pU5r2aC. A second shape appeared 79 times and ended with market::execute_open_market_order_v3_1, as in A6WH63HA. Together, those two shapes account for 235 of 236 transactions.
All 236 transactions called the same three package revisions: 0xefbfd0…92ee10, 0x1ec537…a15d70, and 0xe22657…5ddd46. The explorer supplied no authored contract explanation for them, so “price-update-driven position activity” is an evidence-based description of the call sequence, not a proven identity or intent.
The exception
The sole failure occurred at 2026-07-19T17:02:02Z, in 4L2E2qeT. It used a one-off shape whose final call was position::liquidate_position, then stopped at that call with a Move abort. The application effects were rolled back, so reaching liquidation proves an attempted call, not a completed liquidation.
That failure consumed 424,272 MIST of gas. The other 235 transactions did not fail, and the brief records a longest successful run of 171 transactions.
What moved—and who paid
Across the complete history, the evidence records 3.19720174 SUI of gross sender boundary inflows over 235 transactions. No sender movement was recorded for the failed transaction. These are boundary movements, not proof of profit, payout, or a completed trading outcome.
The address’s transactions accumulated 1,537,152,684 MIST of recorded net gas. Because all 236 transactions were sponsored, that gas was paid by the separate gas owner 0xd241…52c826, not by the sender address itself. The evidence does not establish whether the repeated market calls were profitable or what economic position they represented.
Where to look next
2pU5r2aC— the recurring decrease-position shape.A6WH63HA— the recurring open-position shape and largest gas charge, 13,153,036 MIST.4L2E2qeT— the only failure, stopping atliquidate_position.0xe22657…5ddd46— the package revision containing the market calls.
The clearest character of this address is therefore repetition under sponsorship: a tightly recurring price-update and market-position sequence, one failed liquidation attempt, and no authored explanation strong enough to identify the strategy behind it.