At 22:14 UTC, one transaction stood apart from an otherwise rapid order-maintenance minute. Digest 5jmg6tBq prepared three supporting values, then called pool_script_v2::open_position_with_liquidity_by_fix_coin. The sender-boundary evidence records an outflow of 646,012.523375258 SUI and 295,112.077669 USDC. That SUI movement was about 158.5 times the corpus’s 99th-percentile SUI holding movement for comparable transactions.
The important limit is that these are transaction-wide boundary movements, not proof that the call accepted that liquidity. The explanation explicitly withholds allocation to the position-opening call, so the evidence does not establish that a position opened, that liquidity was deposited, or that any recipient received value. The transaction separately incurred 0.006288968 SUI in gas.
The surrounding minute was an order engine in miniature
The minute contained 2,042 eligible transactions across checkpoints 300592335–300592585. Of the 1,978 transactions usable for semantic grouping, place-limit-orders led with 453 attempts (22.9%), followed by cancel-order with 269 (13.6%) and update-price with 228 (11.5%). Three senders supplied 834 eligible transactions between them, or 40.8%; the largest was 0x0feb54…34ebb3 with 306 (15.0%). The addresses are on-chain identities only, so this concentration does not establish a shared operator.
The pace reinforces the impression of automated execution: the median gap was 0 ms, the 90th-percentile gap was 226 ms, and the longest idle period was only 458 ms. Gas sponsorship was also common: 583 of 2,042 transactions had a gas owner different from the sender.
Failures were concentrated, but not unusually frequent
There were 151 failed eligible transactions, 7.4% of the minute—below the frozen corpus rate of 8.36%. Among the 1,978 semantically usable transactions, 147 failed (7.43%). The largest recorded stop was an unrecorded site with 37 failures; named sites included flash_loan::return_flashloan_quote with 31, pool::swap with 21, and balance::split with 12.
Digest 8mPYKVoP shows what one of those failures looked like. It prepared three values, reached the fourth command, and attempted gateway::swap_assets; execution then aborted at pool::swap with Move abort code 1010. Application changes were rolled back. The sender-boundary record shows only a 0.020068896 SUI outflow, which is also reported as gas; it does not establish that an exchange occurred.
For contrast, sponsored digest F8rpfSAf submitted a DeepBook order for 0.0105 xBTC at a stated resting price of 64,586 USDC per xBTC. Its sender was 0xffd4f0…d2f0ad, while 0x59e8e0…bdc610 paid the gas. The call records the intended size, price, client order ID, and configuration flag, but does not independently prove that the order entered or remained on the book.
The minute’s story is therefore less “a giant position was opened” than “a giant boundary movement accompanied a position-opening attempt.” The chain proves the call shape and the sender-side change; whether the liquidity became a live position remains unresolved.
Further reading: 5jmg6tBq for the outlier, 8mPYKVoP for the failed route, F8rpfSAf for sponsored order placement, and the reusable patterns sui/open-liquidity-position/roster-f0036/v1 and sui/execute-swap-route/coverage93-r054-whole/v1.