For about ten and a half hours on 19 July 2026, this address repeated one two-call routine: refresh a price feed, then pass matched signed orders to a perpetual exchange’s paired-settlement path. It did so 930 times, with a median gap of 39.9 seconds. The pattern is consistent with highly automated execution, but the chain evidence does not establish who operated the address.
The rhythm was the story
These figures use the address’s complete frozen history: 930 transactions from 13:02:08 to 23:37:08 UTC. Every transaction carried the asserted behavior execute-paired-order-settlement and the same pattern, sui/execute-paired-order-settlement/wave4-r1350/v1. None recorded an execution failure, and the longest uninterrupted run of successful transactions was all 930.
The mean gap was 41.0 seconds, the median 39.9 seconds, and the 90th-percentile gap 75.3 seconds. The longest observed idle period was about 127.8 seconds. Activity appeared in every hour of the window; the busiest minute contained five transactions. The address paid its own gas in all 930 transactions, so this activity was not sponsored by another recorded gas owner.
The capped latest-500 view tells the same story. It covers transactions from 17:52:24 to 23:37:08 UTC: all 500 used the same behavior, had the same two-step structure, and recorded no failure. Their median gap was 39.4 seconds.
What each transaction actually attempted
The stored meaning is precise but deliberately limited. The first call authenticates a price-feed update. The second passes matched signed orders for the same market to the perpetual exchange’s settlement path. The price refresh provides market context; reaching the settlement path does not, by itself, prove that either order filled.
The first recorded transaction, 85rKggmv, at checkpoint 300444543, ran price_feed::update_price_feed followed by exchange::trade_v3. Its sender-boundary movement was an outflow of 0.0072159 SUI. A mid-window example, 49vdoHLG, used the same structure and outflowed 0.00740052 SUI. The final transaction, G4DHB24S, again used the same two calls and outflowed 0.007195436 SUI.
Those examples are representative, not proof of an economic result. The transaction descriptions explicitly leave open whether the paired orders filled, and the available evidence does not establish profit, loss, beneficiary, or cross-asset exchange.
The money was remarkably uniform
Across the complete history, the address’s recorded gas outflow was 6.6922335 SUI, or 6,692,233,500 MIST, across 930 transactions. The same amount also appears in the sender-holding accounting record. Those are overlapping evidence views of the same SUI charge and must not be added together.
In the capped latest-500 view, the corresponding gas total was 3.59368094 SUI. Per-transaction gas varied, but stayed in a narrow band there: 0.005294324 to 0.00739852 SUI. The aggregate records expose SUI outflows associated with gas and sender holdings; they do not establish an order-fill proceeds stream or a profitable strategy.
What this address leaves unresolved
The durable character is a single-purpose, machine-paced settlement submitter: 930 repetitions, one package revision (0x47f361…0e1cb4), no recorded failures, and no change in repertoire during the frozen window. That is strong evidence about the address’s observed transaction pattern. It is not evidence of a person, company, operator, or bot, and it says nothing about activity outside this snapshot.
The useful exits are the first transaction 85rKggmv, the final transaction G4DHB24S, the representative mid-window transaction 49vdoHLG, the reusable pattern sui/execute-paired-order-settlement/wave4-r1350/v1, and package revision 0x47f361…0e1cb4.