Probably after the second fail, the address operator noticed an error and made some changes. Just take a look at how transactions stopped for an hour and a half (a tx with a 0.000609 fee, sent by someone not from this system). 
Okay, one more pause
New portion of facts. I think that it is definitely clear that this is some kind of service, which has deposit addresses. After a closer look, it is also clear that transactions to deposit addresses have begun recently.
This graph shows that deposits began to occur from May 25. It is worth noting that from May 5 to 8 they were not. This speaks in favor of the version about the custody migration or the launching of new exchange
Let's take a look at the sources of these ETH. Most txs were sent from Bithumb hot wallet. Other addresses are also similar to exchanges in the way they send transactions.
Bithumb is again at the top of the list if we look at total amounts that were sent to the deposit addresses. It's still difficult to talk about the belonging of other addresses to specific exchanges.
Such facts give us two versions:
- txs with a large fee was sent by Bithumb;
- a large number of Bithumb customers (mostly Koreans) decided to try some exchange, which was recently launched and has certain technical problems.
- txs with a large fee was sent by Bithumb;
- a large number of Bithumb customers (mostly Koreans) decided to try some exchange, which was recently launched and has certain technical problems.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
