Transaction and Wallet Addresses
Arkham Intelligence’s on-chain view shows the receiving wallet 0x51580B706d0E84eC9DE947cDeA33c56D616aaA38 now holding 125,334,083,223 $SHIB (≈$678K). The wallet had no prior on-chain history, implying it was freshly created for this transfer.…— Mazrael.shib (@Mazrael_shib) September 10, 2026
Mazrael noted that Arkham Intelligence’s on-chain view shows the receiving wallet ‘0x51580B706d0E84eC9DE947cDeA33c56D616aaA38’ now holding 125,334,083,223 $SHIB, about $678,000. The wallet had no prior on-chain history, implying it was freshly created for this transfer. Arkham data describes it as an “unlabeled address” that withdrew the tokens.
1.008 trillion $SHIB moved to BitGo
The source of the $SHIB tokens is the BitGo custody wallet ‘0xa63e8DdA009E9079124c1E3678F4932BB8061f4d,’ a known BitGo WalletSimple multisig contract. Mazrael added that Binance/Arkham analysis explicitly labels the wallet as “WalletSimple (BitGo).” This BitGo address acted as the funding wallet for the 125.33B $SHIB transfer.
This BitGo wallet had recently received enormous $SHIB deposits. On Sept 1, 2026, it received 600 billion $SHIB, and on September 6, 2026, another 408 billion $SHIB entered the wallet, documented by Arkham/KuCoin.
These came from two major $SHIB whales—one an early “trillionaire” whale routing through a forwarder and another a dormant whale awakening after about three years. Once commingled in BitGo’s multisig, the exact origin of any individual token became opaque.
Three flows were spotted altogether: 600 billion $SHIB moved by an early $SHIB whale, and 408 billion moved by a three-year dormant whale to the BitGo wallet, which later forwarded 125.33 billion $SHIB to the new wallet.
Thus, while the BitGo wallet clearly funded the transfer, Mazrael stated that the 125.33 billion $SHIB moved cannot be definitively tied to one upstream whale or the other, since both prior inflows fed the same custody address.
Mystery remains
While there appear to be a few known facts about the transmitting wallet, the same cannot be said for the receiving wallet, as no public name or ENS/ShibName associated with the new address could be identified.
Mazrael highlighted that it was regarded as “unlabeled” by all sources utilized. The mystery deepens as several checks, including ShibWatch, show no Shiba name or .eth name for the receiving wallet or the BitGo address. In short, neither wallet has an associated domain or alias on-chain.
The destination wallet still holds the full balance, with all evidence pointing to a custody withdrawal possibly intended to hold the tokens rather than an immediate sale, though future moves remain possible.
Mazrael noted that the recent move seems consistent with custody segregation or an OTC settlement, but there is no additional evidence to support this claim.
