For roughly 10 hours and 34 minutes on 2026-07-19, this address repeatedly managed liquidity positions: 421 transactions claimed assets, 421 added liquidity, 98 attempted maintenance but stopped at the same reward-collection call, and 37 executed swap routes. The cadence—15.4 seconds median between transactions, 88.9 seconds at the 90th percentile—resembles automated position maintenance, though the evidence does not establish a person, operator, or bot behind the address.
The repeating maintenance loop
These whole-history counts cover all 1,127 transactions in the frozen window. The dominant successful pattern reduced position liquidity before collecting fees and rewards. A representative transaction, 6AsJixKn, split native funding into four supporting values and passed them to a position-manager liquidity-increase call. Its sender-boundary movements were −3,015.797797495 SUI and −1,229.02457 USDC; those movements are not proof of the exact amount accepted by the position.
The failure loop is unusually consistent. All 98 maintenance failures stopped at position_manager::collect_reward_with_return_; eight other failures stopped during liquidity increase, and two stopped at a route slippage check. In D1vAGk67, the address decreased liquidity, collected, then aborted while collecting rewards. Sui rolled back the earlier application effects, so this proves an attempted maintenance sequence—not a completed liquidity withdrawal.
The address’s longest uninterrupted success run was 44 transactions. Its longest idle period was about 7 minutes 56 seconds, and its busiest minute contained seven transactions. The same gas owner paid every transaction, so none of this activity was sponsored.
The routing detour
Swap routes were a smaller part of the complete history. Their calls touched combinations of SCA, USDC, SUI, and other venue assets, but route execution alone does not establish an exchange or its economic result.
The final transaction, r6ew6L4D, is a useful exception. It prepared funding, created a router context, ran Bluefin and Turbos-related calls, settled a route, and transferred a SUI coin. The address’s boundary movements were +12.148134544 SUI and −9.063485 USDC, but the system withheld a whole-transaction purpose explanation. Those movements therefore do not establish that an exchange completed.
What moved
These are complete-history sender flows, reported separately by evidence category; gas and holdings must not be added together.
- SUI gas: −1.909906012 SUI net.
- SUI holdings: +19.479646128 SUI net.
- USDC holdings: −0.545132 USDC net.
- DEEP holdings: +0.879655 DEEP.
- WAL holdings: +0.214210077 WAL.
- Additional holding inflows were 84,797,169 raw units of
0x1a8f4b…ALKIMIand 23,343 raw units of0x514549…NS; no display denomination was available.
These are boundary movements, not a profit calculation. No prices or cross-asset conversion are available.
What the latest stream shows
The detailed reader stream is capped at the latest 500 transactions, from 18:31:45 to 23:36:12 UTC—not the address’s entire history. Within that slice, the same structure persisted: 191 asset claims, 191 liquidity increases, 42 reward-collection failures, and 17 swap routes. Forty-six transactions failed, with 42 stopping at the reward call. A further 59 rows received only composition-level descriptions and no asserted behavior.
The address is therefore best read as a persistent, machine-cadence liquidity-maintenance identity with a sharply repeated reward-collection failure, plus occasional multi-venue routing. The evidence shows what was attempted and what crossed the sender boundary; it does not identify who controlled the address, prove a completed exchange, or establish profitability.