Reddit Posts
Tornado Cash hackers used Tornado Cash to launder funds stolen from Tornado Cash
Tornado Cash’s TORN Token Up 10% as Attacker Submits Proposal to Undo Attack
Tornado Cash’s TORN Token Up 10% as Attacker Submits Proposal to Undo Attack
Could Monero (XMR) face the same fate as Tornado cash (TORN)?
I'd forgotten that Tornado Cash was sanctioned and bought some and immediately sold it, will my assets be seized?
Mentions
Binance Will Delist BTS, PERL, TORN, WTC on 2023-12-07
TORN is the coin for Tornado Cash. You can buy it at DeFi or binance.
tldr; North Korean hackers have increasingly favored Bitcoin (BTC) mixers over Tornado Cash (TORN) since U.S. authorities imposed sanctions on the cryptocurrency mixer, according to blockchain analytical firm TRM Labs. Last year, the U.S. Treasury enacted sanctions against Tornado Cash over allegations that it helped criminals launder their illegally acquired digital assets. This move effectively banned mainstream […] The post North Korean hackers have abandoned Tornado Cash for Bitcoin Mixers: TRM Labs appeared first on CryptoSlate. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
Yep, as a Matic holder I'm also absolutely TORN about it.
[Code IS in fact protected speech under the First Amendment.](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech). Broadly speaking, you can publish malicious code and it would be protected by the First Amendment, and in fact at least in the US, you are free to charge money for the code you publish, even if it can be used for malicious purposes. Code is not law (and how people can see that statement as anything but an amusing pun is beyond me), but there are similarities: legislatures can debate, write (or have lobbyists write) and then pass into law any unconstitutional law but unless someone is actually affected by the enforcement of the law, if the law is actually enforced or attempted to be enforced, [congress can simply leave bold chapter names that are clearly discriminatory and violate the constitution if it had substance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-7) and sit on it for 115 years and counting. The same applies to miscegenation laws that were never repealed after Loving v. Virginia, and there are still sodomy-related statutes that are plainly unconstitutional if they are enforced in any manner, except they aren't. However, it would be a different story if you used the code to actually attack infrastructure. The particulars of any case would depend on the facts in addition to the law. I'm sure a good deal of people involved in cyberattacks used Windows or MacOS as the basis for their actions, but Microsoft isn't selling "Windows: Criminal Edition" on hackforums. If you market your product in executable form as a tool for criminal purposes, the state would have a much better shot, albeit not an 100% shot as it depends on, once again, the facts and context, in arguing that instead of mere expression, you are actively a part of a criminal conspiracy. The problem was that the government essentially backtracked in their statements since the initial pronouncement on what is plainly both unenforceable and patently ridiculous. In fact, even today, it's still not clear what and under what theory of law the sanctions are actually targeted. After all, the code itself on github is firmly in the 1st Amendment space. Because the blockchain makes the contract simultaneously existing in hundreds of thousands of copies without the node owners being able to selectively make it unavailable, and there's neither a permissioned "gate" or an off switch, effectively making the code self-executing without the deployer having any say in it, the sanction appears to be sanctioning... a piece of deployed code. Sanctioning an inanimate piece of computer code is as ridiculous as it sounds. At this point, the government had clarified that it sanctions the interaction of a US person and the contract (but this is likely still unenforceable, because of the attribution issue that came up in the BitcoinFog case that crypto-literate criminal defense attorneys have known for quite some time), but it remains ambiguous as to whether the restriction is on the particular deployment on this particular chain or something broader. The fact that the government even decided to clarify means that they can make clarifications, which makes their lack of proper outlining of boundaries even more maddening to lawyers and chilling to developers. Would you violate the sanction if you fork the chain and then interact with the contract? Frankly, we don't know. A district court have granted summary judgment on a civil case against the designation, but much of the decision hinges on the degree of deference the court is bound to give to OFAC in anything related to national security that it essentially was handcuffed by precedent to take OFAC's definition at face value. The court giving administrative agencies the benefit of the doubt is incredibly common and even without the added level of deference in a national security case, the government generally prevails on definitional questions especially in the lower courts. The inability of the last administration in following esoteric but extremely favorable directions aside, it's not difficult at all for an agency, OFAC or DHS or Treasury or whatever, to act as judge, jury, and executioner in one go as long as they follow the exact procedures outlined under the APA. That doesn't necessarily mean a higher court would view the facts and the law in the same manner, especially when OFAC relied on defining a DAO as an "organization" that's sanctionable because owning TORN tokens is analogous to holders of stock in a company, except that analogy contradicts the court's other analogy that the contract is like a vending machine, although 80+% of users using the service were making shielded transactions to earn TORN tokens. Vending machines don't distribute interest to its users, or part of its revenue. But I don't know why the downvotes, your concern is valid and in fact, at the heart of the court's analysis under American law. [The criminal matter involving the devs were unsealed recently and for a federal criminal matter it is surprisingly weak](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.604937/gov.uscourts.nysd.604937.1.0.pdf), speaking from experience defending federal criminal matters. The feds have effectively an unlimited budget, unlimited time to conduct an investigation, and broad latitude from literally bribing witnesses ("jailhouse snitches") to create deliberate game theory set pieces to pit defendants against each other. Instead, what they came up with was 8/37 pages of background that is mostly irrelevant, which they are entitled to do (charging documents are allowed inadmissible evidence, and no defense lawyer have ever seen an indictment/information that isn't embellished or mistaken in stating the facts), states as fact that Eth is currency as a matter of fact (then why does the IRS insist that it should be taxed otherwise?) and that TORN tokens have pre-determined value at launch (it did not, the value came from AMMs not operated by the defendants)., and with those as priors, attempts to portray relayers (an idea that predates TC) as nefarious, and in the end... **The strongest case the government could make was for conspiracy (two or more people make an agreement + overt act in furtherance) between the two operators of the front end for money laundering and operating without a money transmitter license, based on the continued payment of hosting fees being the overt act, and conspiracy to evade sanctions (which was walked back 2 months after the issuance)**. The federal defenders are extremely competent (as in, if you are not a lawyer, you should go with a federal defender instead of private counsel for cases that might go to trial, since guess who does the most federal trials? Yep, them). More facts will come out and some evidence will be suppressed, but the feds once did a 4 year sting to get my client on possessing 4 Oxy pills so... this is not a great start for the feds, although we'll see what happens, I guess.
Nah, the Monero project is actually pretty poor, relying solely on donations to fund dev work. I bet the TORN DAO had a way bigger treasury than the little bit that we have.
> Yes, and they didn't operate a transfer system. They served code that the user ran client-side They created, modified, and owned code. The code's sole purpose was to facilitate transfers of money. > What else did they generate income from? You act lile generating the money is the only way to break the law. It isn't naturally, but making money makes it really damn hard to claim it was simply free speech and you didn't own/control the thing making you money. The rest of what they did was all over the indictment. I notice you didn't respond to any of their own quotes I repeated back to you, for example. > All Web3 websites use Infura. There's no reason the Tornado Cash UI the developers ran would be any differnent. And all of them are businesses providing services and responsible for laws broken by their services and/or during the provision of their services. Where was the free speech claim again? > They served code that the user ran client-side You can argue all day long, it is clear that money laundering took place. The only possible legal out that they could have is to argue successfully that they only created the system, which has demonstrably legal usecases, but cannot control, own, or profit from said system. Theres plenty of people who have gone to jail for money laundering where they never controlled the money directly, that is not a requirement of the law. You're not doing a great job of arguing that they didn't profit from or control the system, ala not responding to my LLC / "Legal Costume" points. That was their mistake. From a technical perspective if they had not tried to run the UI themselves, not created TORN, and not profited from Tornado, they would have a very good case for free speech. That was where they screwed up.
> The code for the website is here: > https://github.com/tornadocash/tornado-core I find it hilarious that you link me to something that isn't a website and call it a website, while asserting to me that you are correct on the technicals and everyone else is wrong. The only things in that repo are a demo cli tool and the smart contracts. > The submission happens on the user's computer. Given your nearly zero batting average, I'm going to continue to trust the indictment until you can actually provide proof (or don't, I don't care). And even if you are correct, it's still not sufficient to defeat this case so long as they profited from running tornado. > Those are just node surrogates, like very other web3 project uses. You claim, based on nothing. > That in no way changes the fact that the fee was to keep being listed on the specific UI being served by the Tornado Cash DAO's server, meaning it amounts to an advertising fee. This might be the closest thing to a real legal argument youve made yet, but I have almost no confidence that you actually understand what you're talking about, so I'm still not going to buy it. If, somehow, the registration, AND selection of relayer happened entirely on-chain through a contract that the tornado creators couldn't control any more, AND the process of arranging the withdrawal was entirely client-side (which seems either impossible, prohibative on blockchain resources, potentially a source of thefts from relayers, or easy for attacker relayers to collect information that was supposed to be unknown)... If all of those things were true, then the only remaining case is that basically the tornado cash founders are trying to use the TORN token as if it were like an LLC; where they can still control and profit from a thing, but not be liable for it. That is extremely unlike to work, courts see and deal with versions of this nonsense all the time. Wrapping yourself in a legal costume and breaking the law is still illegal. But I still don't believe your descriptions of the technicals, and your inability to clearly address the pretty technical legal indictment (ignoring your claims of doing it; claiming a thing is not the same as doing it) isn't helping. > the only way to accept the prosecutors' argument This is precisely why I said you sound like a sovereign citizen. Wrapping up illegal activity in legalese and creating imaginary entities to take the blame for illegal behavior rarely works.
>You seem to have a lot of technical confusions and/or are making assumptions about how things operated that aren't in the indictment I am correct about how things operate, and if they're not in the indictment, it's because the indictment disregards the truth. You seem to be operating on the premise that every allegation and claim contained in the indictment is fact. That's the kind of government-deifying ideology that promotes fascism. >But the indictment says not only did tornado.cash submit to (and thus execute) the smart contract themselves, they also paid a service to facilitate the connection to the ethereum blockchain themselves due to the volume and frequency of transactions. So either you have your facts wrong or they do. What the indictment asserts is false. The webpage runs client-side, meaning on the user's computer. The code for the website is here: https://github.com/tornadocash/tornado-core And anyone could have downloaded the code and run the same webpages. The submission happens on the user's computer. The Tornado Cash servers did not handle the submission request and then serve it to the blockchain on behalf of the user. >they also paid a service to facilitate the connection to the ethereum blockchain themselves due to the volume and frequency of transactions. Those are just node surrogates, like very other web3 project uses. Running a node is not a money transmission service. >You also skipped quoting the next line where relayers literally had to pay a TORN fee to be selected by the UI, forcing them to buy more TORN, which by far the largest amount was issued to the founders and their VC. That in no way changes the fact that the fee was to keep being listed on the specific UI being served by the Tornado Cash DAO's server, meaning it amounts to an advertising fee.
You seem to have a lot of technical confusions and/or are making assumptions about how things operated that aren't in the indictment nor ard common / easy to find public knowledge (seemingly you are doing so to reach your pre-determined conclusion). Earlier you said this: > > Even the front-end UI that they provided, was served to the user's computer, to be run client-side. It was not executed server side. Claiming that transmitting wallet code that is then executed by others But the indictment says not only did tornado.cash submit to (and thus execute) the smart contract themselves, they also paid a service to facilitate the connection to the ethereum blockchain themselves due to the volume and frequency of transactions. So either you have your facts wrong or they do. You ask above what mechanism the tornado devs profited from the relayers themselves. The answer is in the last line of the quote you gave- torn tokens, given to and then sold by torn developers, only had a value in relayer selection, and relayers charged fees to pay costs and earn a profit. You also skipped quoting the next line where relayers literally had to pay a TORN fee to be selected by the UI, forcing them to buy more TORN, which by far the largest amount was issued to the founders and their VC. This fee also primarily went back to the founders and their VC (as the largest staker in their DAO). They were literally quoted saying "guys it's important to pump TORN." The mechanism was clear as soon as they announced the torn token, and that further is almost certainly a securities law violation. They were further quoted saying "need help to push tornado to make some money". Not even "TORN", they said "tornado". Despite all your evasiveness, they knew what they were doing was illegal. They discussed "needing to hand over the primary access so they could yell that the worker isn't the owner." They discussed "maybe it's a dead giveaway if we pay for tornado with the peppersec account". As they said in their private chats after the sanctions, "guys, we are fucked". Yeah.
The problem with Tornado cash is that they mixed USDT. If they had stuck with mixing ETH or mixing TORN and using the uniswap pool to swap between USDT and TORN, like how 0xTIP mixes 0xMonero tokens only, then they wouldn't have been a target. You become a target when you facilitate money laundering of fiat currencies. Mixers that mix USD or EUR aren't going to make it.
The issue regulators have with Tornado cash is that they mixed dollars. If they had stuck with mixing ETH or mixing TORN and using the uniswap pool to swap between USDT and TORN, like how 0xTIP mixes 0xMonero tokens only, then they wouldn't have been a target. You become a target when you facilitate money laundering of fiat currencies. Mixers that mix stablecoins aren't going to make it.
Sure, if nobody had updated code in the Github... then there wouldn't have been updates (for example). But that has nothing to do with whether or not the contributions to Github were anonymous. You're arguing a point I didn't make. My observation is on anonymity. If there were anonymous updates to Github, and anonymous votes of TORN, the finding would have been 100% the same, and it would have been found to be an "Entity" as the term is defined.
aww damn it's gone because TORN dev faces jail
Easy, they can go after the developers. Like TORN.
Consider me TORN between the two
What use cases does TORN have?
That’s not exactly what happened. Basically, a proposal was submitted that gave the hacker access to the 1.2m TORN governance tokens staked in the contract and it was approved by voters. This effectively gave that hacker control over Tornado Cash governance proposals. They did NOT take all the tokens. Instead, the hacker issued a new proposal to give back control and cashed out 483k TORN. After the vote passed and control was restored, they used tornado cash to launder it.
They probably shorted TORN to make even more bank.
tldr; The governance token holders of Tornado Cash will regain control over the protocol's operations thanks to a proposal put forth by the individual responsible for the attack. The proposal passed successfully, allowing the community to regain authority and steer the protocol toward recovery and improved security measures. The attacker managed to pilfer a significant sum of 483,000 TORN tokens, converting the majority of the stolen tokens into 485 ETH, equivalent to approximately $890,000. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
tldr; The Tornado Cash attacker, who took over the project's governance, has submitted a new proposal to revert the damage they caused. The attacker granted themselves 1.2 million TORN tokens, giving them control over the DAO, and swapped 380,000 of the newly-gotten TORN tokens for 372 ETH. The malicious proposal added a self-destruct function, which replaced the original proposal with a new, malicious one, allowing the attacker to withdraw all locked governance votes and drain all the tokens from the governance contract. Another proposal was made to revert the changes, but the attacker still holds 820,000 TORN tokens, which means they still have total control over the DAO. The attack highlights the need for DAOs to encourage active review of proposals and participation from holders to prevent governance attacks. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
tldr; An unidentified hacker took control of Tornado Cash's governance by submitting a malicious proposal, granting themselves 1.2 million votes and surpassing the threshold of 700,000. The attacker has the power to withdraw all the locked votes and drain all the tokens in the governance contract. TORN plunged over 36% after the attack, but the token recovered over 8% on Monday after the person who anonymously gained control of the protocol’s governance suggested a plan to undo the harmful code. The new proposal could revert the damage done to the protocol’s governance, and it appears likely that the proposal will be approved once voting concludes on May 26. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
tldr; A new proposal suggests that the attacker who gained control over Tornado Cash's governance may give back control. The attacker had complete control over the decentralized crypto mixer's governance, which could have resulted in massive losses. Community member Tornadosaurus-Hex published a proposal requesting all members to withdraw funds locked in governance to minimize potential damages. The attacker surprisingly reached out to the community with a new proposal, hinting at their intent to give back governance control. While some community members are optimistic, others speculate it was a move to pump the TORN token's price before cashing out. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
tldr; The TORN token of Tornado Cash has increased by 10% after an attacker submitted a proposal to undo the attack. Tornado Cash is a decentralized privacy solution that allows users to make anonymous transactions on the Ethereum blockchain. The attacker had exploited a vulnerability in the system and stolen 10% of the TORN token supply. However, the attacker has now submitted a proposal to return the stolen funds in exchange for a reward. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
The on-chain proposal looks like it'll pass. But it could be a trap, and the attacker never end up executing the proposal by running the "executeProposal" function. If so, the purpose would be to pump the price of TORN in order to dumb it.
tldr; An attacker has taken over the governance system of Tornado Cash, a crypto mixing service that runs on Ethereum, by passing a malicious proposal that gave them complete control. The attacker used this control to withdraw and sell locked votes, taking 483,000 TORN from the vault. Binance has stopped deposits and withdrawals of TORN, while Justin Sun said on Twitter that deposits and withdrawals of the token remain open on Huobi. The attacker can drain all of the tokens in the governance contract and stop the router from working, but cannot drain the funds held within the protocol. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
tldr; The Tornado Cash DAO's governance system was taken over by an attacker who submitted a malicious proposal that was approved by the organization. The attacker exploited a feature to give themselves an additional 1.2 million votes, effectively giving them control over the whole political system. The attacker then removed 10,000 tokens representing votes in the form of TORNs and sold them all for $25,600. Binance has halted TORN deposits and withdrawals, while Huobi will continue to accept deposits and withdrawals of the token. The price of TORN has decreased from a high of $7.3 to as low as $3.75. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
tldr; Hackers have taken over Tornado Cash, a service that allows users to mask cryptocurrency transactions, through a malicious governance proposal. The attackers granted themselves 1.2 million fake votes, exceeding the 700,000 legitimate votes, and gained full control over the governance of Tornado Cash. The governance token of Tornado Cash, TORN, enables its holders to vote for changes in the protocol. The token fell as much as 44% on Sunday, and crypto exchange Binance temporarily paused deposits of TORN. Tornado Cash is allegedly the preferred tool for hackers and criminals to launder stolen or illicitly acquired funds. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
why is tornado cash's ticker symbol "TORN"? makes them sound like a grunge metal band
Pretty sad that the malicious proposal was reviewed and deemed safe. There was however a sort of hidden backdoor with self destruct code allowing the hacker to use some basic evm code to do kind of whatever they wanted. They minted like 1M TORN which was supposedly sold. All TORN in vault is vulnerable to rug, amount to 10k TORN last I checked. A community member proposed a revert to undo (some) of the damage, mostly everything aside from already minted and sold tokens, but they are putting their own funds on the line to be rugged in doing so. Given the hacker has so much power, it's a tough hill to climb. But possible
tldr; An unidentified attacker or group of attackers took over the DAO handling operations of Tornado Cash, a privacy-focused crypto mixer, by floating a malicious proposal that granted them fake votes. The attacker now has access to all governance votes and can handle some aspects of Tornado Cash, such as TORN tokens held in the main governance contract or withdrawal of locked TORN tokens. However, this attack does not impact the actual Tornado Cash protocol. The TORN token slumped as much as 40% in the past 24 hours as a result of the governance attack. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
It’s TORN devs who are seeking help from Binance But not sure if Binance will support
Hacker has appropriated 1.2 million votes and taken full control of the protocol. He also took 483k TORN from the management storage. The hacker sold 379k TORN for 375 ETH the situation is almost hopeless, as developers do not yet know how to regain control of the protocol. They are seeking help from Binance
"Especially considering they apparently mixed the TORN in Tornado Cash afterwards lol." This like breaking in and burning someone's house down, but decided to take a huge dump on the front porch before lighting the match!
Mostly this. It's unfortunate because the malicious proposal was reviewed and deemed as safe. It appears there's a hole in the code's self-destruct function which can be used in combination with basic OP code(CREATE2) to allow the hacker to do a whole lot of nasty stuff like issuing massive amounts of TORN to themselves. That would then of course give control of governance to them. All funds in vault deemed vulnerable. There also a proposal to revert the changes but in doing so, the person who proposed in is leaving their own TORN tokens vulnerable to the hacker. Basically, you gotta have TORN token "available" to make a proposal, but in making your TORN available, they're there to be stolen by the hacker.
First time hearing about TORN
\>Especially considering they apparently mixed the TORN in Tornado Cash afterwards lol. This sounds like the hypocrisy I would indeed expect from state actors...
Any crypto that offers real privacy will be the first to be made illegal. Saw what they did to TORN already.
I thought TORN was on a tear? 🤔
TORN get dumped by 12% today, any bad news?
So a few points: 1. There are already CEXs in place that are not allowed to be used in the states. Binance.com is one example. Yes people just use VPNs. If you start outlawing your people from visiting the sites you turn into China, and no one wants that. Edge case for ya: Tornado Cash got sanctioned by US for enabling N. Korea to wash crypto through their mixer for the purpose of funding their nuke program (legit reason to ban it). They shut down their website, github, discord, even disabled some wallets that were using it and finally told the population that if you use it, we will take legal action against you. Sure it stopped it for a while but 5 more services popped up in its place lol. Oh and TORN is still operating through new mediums. 2. To address your “real money” question: I currently know of 2 services where I send them crypto and they either send me a visa gift card loaded, amazon gift card, pretty much any gift card. Also, if its over $4000 I can have them mail me cash. Zelle, cashapp, paypal are all options as well.
“A lot have been caught” Source: trust me bro I think they didn’t even caught 0.1% judging the number of scammers in crypto. They caught the founder of TORN, yes, but not for personal money laundering - he just made it possible. Almost no one who uses TORN gets caught.
It uses the TORN token. lmao It doesn't matter anyway. It's not Bitcoin. Shitcoins, dodgy exchanges - all of them are as bad as each other.
Man, am I going to have to give up my 'TORN' T-shirt and hat, and zk-SNARK FTW print sweatpants?
No TORN is a smart contract that conforms to the ERC20 interface. I’m not sure the degree of separation between TORN and the mixer itself, and if they’re deployed to the same address or what.
> I think the smart contract address itself is sanctioned, But when using Uniswap, you are not actually interacting with TORN itself. Only If you Deposit USDC to TORN itself, that's when the USDC and TORN interacts with eachother. The USDC smart-contract then pretty much self-destructs and makes itself useless.
Just owning TORN doesn't make you blacklisted. If you used the protocol itself then you would be blacklisted. So you're fine.
Does anyone know what their TORN token was/is for?
TORN is decentralized and non-custodial.
Would now be a good time to buy $TORN?
This week, I'm keeping an eye on ETH, SYLO, UNI, TORN, and ONE. GMT also caught my attention with its unique features, I may include it as well.
Keeping a close tab on some low caps this week. RFOX, TORN, RIDE and FLOKI.
BTC and SOLANA are solid ones I'm considering. I'm also looking at TORN, FTM, and SYLO as safe bets, as they have greater potential than what we're currently seeing.
It's Bitcoin, AXL, CRO and TORN for me this week, they have a vast number of holders and quite a lot of believers, and I'm banking on them to survive long term.
It hasnt even affected the price of TORN yet lol, nice sensationalism.
It's obviously missing out on a privacy altcoin like RAIL or TORN. And considering how much it will be soon, you will be really pained if you don't get into one. RAIL is kinda new and it's got a good entry point.
As much as I hate Biden, Republicans love Israel and their centralized banking cartel. DeFi is the ONLY solution. I bet we'll be switching from central exchanges to code-regulated peer-to-peer exchanges. Privacy coins and fund-mixing protocols (like TORN) are the solution.
AMP used to be on my list but at this point I have zero (0) faith in it as a hold bc it will get TORN APART in a bear market. At this point I don't see it even maintaining 3 cents if things continue in a downtrend.
My strong buys are TORN and CHESS Torn for money laundering and chess for the protocol behind it
Trx, dash, TORN, xtz
>I lost all of my interest in SCRT when they had their recent exploit This is the same reason for me, I prefer to make use of TORN now or make use of recent developments built with zero Knowledge for shielded transactions.
hasnt happened to date, outside of one order i accidentally canceled and two i got impatient with and canceled. all funds diverted and orders triggered. got SOL at $25 TORN at $30 ICP at $30 ATOM at $8 AAVE at $200 DOT at $10 DCAed ETH all at once at $1850 same for BTC at $30k all within just the past 60 days
They seriously need to get schooled but you know this is the reason why I love defi as there are tons of privacy tools like TORN, RAIL, UMBRA and the likes that facilitates anonymous transactions to stores that accept crypto, but the taxman won't store until crypto has become mainstream.
TORN for about four hours.
Looking at alt/shitcoins right now, I'm seeing TORN up 50% in 24hrs to date and FIS and FRONT down 20%. I'm thinking of throwing a little more at a couple of these tonight for the gamble to see how it pays out.
I love MOONs man, nevertheless, ETH tops my bag, MATIC, VET, USDC, TORN and RAIL. I got to be decisive of my assets and I love it.
yea, but it will definitely cause a bearish outlook for the market, don't you think so? we will definitely see a move in the deployment and usage of privacy protocols, just take a look at TORN,. it did 6m in volume, what about others; when this law/bill comes to life a good number of trades will be facilitated through them.
Free coins isn’t something to talk about I participated in both UNI and 1inch, then next thing I know I have thousands of dollars of airdropped coins that I sold for real money Unfortunately I missed out on the TORN airdrop but you can’t win them all All you have to do is have Erc20s at the time of snapshot. Look into it. No need to be cynical.
this is certainly the case of David against goliath' if both the Chinese and the Indian Govt decides to go against crypto, then with friendly policies from the smaller countries, we will see a lot of migration to these and there economies will surely prosper. for the hostile nations, soon they will notice a sharp decline in crypto transactions that are visible to them because more of their citizens (crypto-oriented) have begun to make use of dark style trading pool courstey of a private network, eg TORN, RAIL, etc. to stay hidden and secured.
TORN tearing it up! Yeah, I'm out 🙃
It’s hard to know, but it can be simple like lots of early investors who are trying to dump the coin and been waiting for big exchange listing to do it. Maybe TORN had a lot and KEEP didn’t.
Who do some coins pump after getting listed while others don't or even dump? Last week TORN got listed on binance and dumped while KEEP is pumping after binance listing!
>efore it is listed experiment failed > >Bought TORN on coinex at $78.5 > >Its $75.5 after on binance after it got listed. yes, it will bleed 90% if you dont cut your losses.
Tornado Cash isn’t the most popular app, wouldn’t expect much of TORN as far as speculation goes. It’s meant to govern tornado cash which is only used by people mixing ETH.
Buying a coin before it is listed experiment failed Bought TORN on coinex at $78.5 Its $75.5 after on binance after it got listed. Should I run away and cut my losses?
Bought TORN on coinex since it is going to get listed om binance after an hour. When should I sell?
Commenting cause i wanna know too, i saw on marketcap that TORN went up a bit over 10% right after the binance announcement, I assume many others buy the token before on other exchanges, perhaps deposit them onto their binance wallets and then sell it during the first minutes crypto is available for trading to make a delta
Must have heard the community talking that shit about TORN flipping it. 😂
lol, how about you look at what I post there. TORN token, a new token for a platform that has been on eth, generating revenue, for years. CVX token, a Curve DAO whitelisted project that helps improve capital efficiency on CRV, just released days ago. These are not scams. There are great projects. I help moderate the sub you're talking about, and we try damn hard to keep the scams out of it.
Ugh. So are we putting in a limit order for 41k or what? 40k? I'M SO TORN RN
Keep btc? Add more? Sell? IM SO TORN
I am bullish on Tornado Cash/TORN. As future zk-SNARK mixers would have to earn more liquidity than TC, as more liquidity=better anonymity as there is more possibilities from A to TC to B. You would have to bring something significant to the table to compete with that, and that's not even mentioning a proven track record. They added DAI, cDAI, and WBTC pools recently. They also have a compliance tool, to prove where the crypto came from if you needed. Just because ETH gas fees make TC expensive now, doesn't mean it won't run on popular layer 2s along side your favorite dapps.
If you think that's good wait till you hear about some of the airdrops crypto has seen (UNI, 1INCH, TORN etc.). One user apparently was airdropped over 1 mill worth of TORN when it got released - just for utilising their platform.
Hmm interesting 🤨,TORN does have a use case
TORN/Tornado Cash price is starting to look attractive. Peak was in the $400 and now its $115. I expect it to be like the uniswap airdrop. Rise initially, then slow fall, then once it's actually utilized, will rise to new heights. Also kicking myself for going with REN over RUNE, 2 months ago.
\>Edit: Never mind, just noticed the last link. Easy! They only check for "UNI, 1INCH, TORN, COMBO, & CRV" without you paying them, as indicated on the pricing page.
They only check for "UNI, 1INCH, TORN, COMBO, & CRV" without you paying them, as indicated on the pricing page.
If you're looking to maximize your rewards without adding too much risk, I'd look at pairs for tokens you're currently involved in, and compare the 24 hour trading volume to the size of the pool. The more volume to liquidity ratio, the higher that pool's overall rewards are. You'll want to pick a mid-sized pool, that has at least a few million dollars backing it, so there is less chance of a whale pooling the rug on the pool. Here's a list of pairs, and you can search for whichever token you're interested in: https://info.uniswap.org/pairs You can also check the pair on etherscan and look at the LP tokens for the pool. Etherscan will show you the holders, so you can see if it's well spread out or a handful of whales. Since you specifically asked, I'll take this opportunity to promote TORN token. I just joined the pool a few days ago and have made $80 on my $15k deposit (7.5k TORN, 7.5k ETH)
BLINK maybe SWIRL for a runner up. i guess TORN is still technically low cap, but im not buying in at $125.