A wallet having a connection with Vitalik Buterin has reportedly been engaging in a huge transfer. As per Lookonchain, a popular on-chain analytics provider, the respective wallet transacted 1,300 $ETH with a value of $3.17M to some other wallet going by “0x5567.” The on-chain analytics platform took to its official social media account to provide the details of the wallet’s recent activity.
The wallet "0xD04d" related to @VitalikButerin transferred 1,300 $ETH($3.17M) to wallet "0x5567" again 1 hour ago.Wallet "0x5567" then deposited 74.17 $ETH($181K) to #Paxos.The last time wallet "0xD04d" transferred 1,000 $ETH($2.45M) to wallet "0x5567" was 348 days ago, and… pic.twitter.com/S6TsqyhK20
— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) September 19, 2024
$ETH Wallet Linked to the Co-Founder of Ethereum Shifts $3.17M to Another Wallet
In its recent X post, Lookonchain disclosed that the transaction occurred only an hour back. It marked another example of high-value movement of $ETH between the respective 2 wallets. Just following getting the above-mentioned 1,300 $ETH tokens, the wallet deposited up to 74.17 $ETH to Paxos.
This amount accounted for nearly $181,000 in terms of value. Paxos operates as a blockchain infrastructure forum. It issues regulated stablecoins along with offering services concerning cryptocurrency. The respective deposit does not have a clear purpose at the moment. Nonetheless, it increases the intrigue to utilize the wider movement series linked to such addresses.
According to Lookonchain, this is not the first time the wallets have been in a link. The on-chain analytics platform asserted that 348 days back another such incident took place. At that time, the wallet “0xD04d” reportedly transacted 1,000 $ETH coins to “0x5567.” This figure equaled $2.45M at that time. Following that transaction, the wallet receiving the tokens deposited the 1,000 $ETH to a famous crypto exchange Bitstamp.
The Transaction May Denote Routine Portfolio Management or Liquidity Activities
The respective pattern of big $ETH transactions between the aforementioned wallets points toward some routine portfolio management or liquidity activities. However, there is no information available about the precise reasons at the back of this event. The transaction adds to the expanding list of substantial shifts between the respective wallets.
