For roughly ten hours, this sender kept attempting multi-step swap routes, and almost all failed at the same final obligation. Across its complete history in this frozen window, 1,019 of 1,040 eligible transactions failed. The cadence is consistent with automated retrying, but the evidence does not identify a person, program, operator, or strategy.
The loop
The address was active from 13:02:02.841 to 23:37:40.355 UTC. Its median gap was 13.115 seconds, the 90th-percentile gap 98.843 seconds, and the longest pause 451.656 seconds. The longest consecutive run of failures was 160; the longest run without a failure was only two.
The dominant activity was execute-swap-route: 842 of 1,040 eligible transactions (81.0%). Most routes opened quote-side flash credit, passed value through exchange-related calls, and attempted to return the borrowed quote asset. The leading route variants occurred 212 times for coverage93-r004-committed-or-repayment-abort/v1, 91 times for coverage93-r015-committed-or-repayment-abort/v1, and 88 times for roster-f0132/v1.
Of 1,019 failures, 867 (85.1%) stopped at flash_loan::return_flashloan_quote in revision 0x90290f…02df56. Another 150 had no more specific abort-site label; one stopped while borrowing the quote asset and one while reading a valid price. The same revision was called in all 1,040 transactions.
The latest-500 stream is a separate, capped view covering 19:35:23.494–23:37:40.355 UTC. It preserves the same character: 489 of 500 failed, while 418 were described end-to-end and 82 only as connected-call compositions.
What the routes prove
In 3kTVd5s, the route opened quote-side flash credit, sent value through DeepBook and Bluefin, and reached repayment with 142 USDC submitted. It then aborted at that repayment call. This proves an attempted composition, not a completed exchange; application effects were rolled back. Sui’s transaction model is all-or-nothing for Move execution, while gas is still charged on an abort. [Sui system paper](https://docs.sui.io/doc/sui.pdf)
4B8dtFb7 completed a five-step route involving a pool conversion, DEEP coin construction, DeepBook, and repayment. Its recorded sender-boundary movement was +0.006477756 SUI and +60,448 raw NS, alongside 0.006666244 SUI of gas. The stored explanation leaves the exchange outcome unresolved.
98keCoW3 failed earlier with a command-argument error after opening flash credit and measuring a coin. Its remaining four submitted steps did not run. It paid 0.000475688 SUI in gas and carries no asserted route behavior.
The bounded money story
Across the complete history, SUI gas movements were 0.007956860 SUI in and 0.785521776 SUI out, for a gas-side net of −0.777564916 SUI. Separately, SUI holding movements were 0.044098798 SUI in and 0.740807406 SUI out, for a holding net of −0.696708608 SUI. These figures must remain separate because the same gas charge can also appear as a holding change.
Other proven holding movements were +0.135107 USDC, +252,669 raw NS, +49 raw xBTC, and +0.003345003 WAL. There are no prices here, and these movements do not establish profit, loss, or a cross-asset exchange result. Every transaction used the sender itself as gas owner; no separate sponsor appears.
The strongest characterization is narrow: this on-chain identity repeatedly attempted flash-funded, multi-venue route compositions, with a retry rhythm and a common repayment failure. Whether those attempts represented trading, testing, or something else remains outside the evidence.