The number of on-chain transactions on the Shiba Inu (SHIB) network fell more than 95 percent in a single day. Transfers at one point jumped to their highest level since last October, but there was no notable change in price or exchange fund flows, leading markets to weigh automation or technical testing rather than large-scale trading as the cause.

Blockchain outlet U.Today reported on Tuesday that SHIB on-chain transfers surged to 78,558 on July 6, then fell to 3,922 a day later. That represents a drop of about 95 percent.

The surge was the largest for SHIB since October last year. But as volume returned to normal unusually quickly, it is raising the possibility that it was a one-off operation rather than broader investor demand or large-scale trading.

Such spikes in on-chain transactions often occur when crypto exchanges move customer assets to cold wallets or reorganise wallet structures. But in this case, there were no signs confirming that.

Exchange inflow and outflow data for July 6 compiled by blockchain data analytics platform Arkham showed no large fund movements. Exchange liquidity indicators also held around normal levels with no notable change.

Fund movements into and out of exchanges could have offset each other by chance. But because the data tracks total movement volume rather than net inflows, Arkham said any genuinely large transfers should have left a clear trace on the chart.

Price action was also unusual. Network activity made it look as though transactions had surged explosively, but SHIB traded near $0.0000042 with little fluctuation. Normally, if tens of thousands of real trades occur over a short period, price volatility often increases, but this time the market price barely reacted.

That has led markets to view a short burst of transactions generated by an automated program as the most likely explanation. The outlet analysed it as meaning that a roughly 95 percent drop in activity could indicate someone ran thousands of transactions via an automated script and then stopped immediately once the task ended.

Two main possibilities are being discussed. The first is that a large whale investor or early holder may have repositioned assets between private wallets without going through an exchange. Without using an exchange, it is possible to move large assets without affecting the market.

Another possibility is that a development organisation or bridge project carried out smart-contract or network load tests on the Ethereum mainnet. The explanation is that transaction volume may have surged in a short period during technical verification in a live operating environment.

Based on the data confirmed so far, assessments are emerging that this sharp change in transaction volume is far from market anxiety or a structural warning signal. That is because the price remained stable and no exchange fund movement was confirmed.

The industry sees the case as more likely to be interpreted as traces left on a blockchain network by specific automated operations or technical activity rather than actual investor trading. The focus will be on whether a similar pattern repeats and whether related projects or large holders show additional moves.