Community Trust ScoreVerified
A new governance proposal inside the Tornado Cash DAO is drawing serious alarm. Researchers flagged it fast — and the more they looked, the worse it got.
L2BEAT researchers were among the first to call out the proposal, pointing to one glaring red flag: it references an unverified contract. That alone is unusual enough to warrant scrutiny in any DAO vote. But there’s more. The wallet address that submitted the proposal was funded, recently, by Railgun — a competing crypto privacy protocol. That funding trail hasn’t gone unnoticed, and it’s fueling suspicion about who’s really behind the submission and what they actually want out of it.
Not a clean picture.
What the Proposal Actually Does
On the surface, the proposal looks almost reasonable. It lays out a new fee structure and claims to bring a “dynamic deflationary economic model” to Tornado Cash. Sounds like governance housekeeping. But Sergey Shemyakov, a ZK researcher, went public on social media saying the proposal’s logic is convoluted — his word. He called for more scrutiny before anyone touches the vote.
Pascal Caversaccio from the Security Alliance went further. He didn’t just call it suspicious. He called it malicious. Per Caversaccio, the proposal is basically designed to swap out key governance addresses and replace them with fraudulent ones — lookalikes, with similar opening characters, controlled by an attacker. The governance address at stake controls $23 million in TORN tokens. That’s not a rounding error. If the swap goes through, whoever controls that spoofed address gets their hands on a significant chunk of the DAO’s decision-making power and assets.
And there’s a second problem buried in the proposal: it could zero out relayer balances across the network. Relayers are critical infrastructure for Tornado Cash users. They’re how people interact with the protocol without exposing their own wallet addresses. Wiping those balances doesn’t just hurt the relayers — it guts the privacy functionality that the whole platform is built around.
Caversaccio has been direct: TORN holders should reject this proposal. Full stop.
The 2023 Attack Left Scars
It’s worth remembering this isn’t the first time someone tried to hijack Tornado Cash governance. In 2023, a near-identical playbook played out. An attacker pushed through a malicious proposal and ended up with majority voting power over the DAO. Once in control, they sold a significant amount of TORN tokens and ran the proceeds through Tornado Cash itself to obscure the trail. Brazen doesn’t quite cover it.
There were other incidents too. At some point, front-end interfaces for the platform were hit with malicious scripts that leaked sensitive user data to an attacker-controlled server. That’s a different kind of attack — not governance, but just as damaging to trust. Decentralized platforms carry a specific kind of risk: the code is the law, and if the code gets compromised, there’s no customer support line to call.
The pattern here is pretty clear. Tornado Cash has been a recurring target, and the governance structure has proven vulnerable more than once.
Legal Trouble Isn’t Going Away Either
The governance drama is happening alongside an unresolved legal situation that won’t let the platform breathe. Tornado Cash spent time under US Treasury sanctions — those were later revoked. But the prosecution of developer Roman Storm for running an unlicensed money-transmitting business is still ongoing. No resolution yet. That legal uncertainty hangs over everything, making it harder for the community to focus purely on the technical and governance problems piling up.
Storm’s case probably matters beyond just Tornado Cash. How courts treat the developers of privacy protocols has implications across the whole sector. But for now, it’s just another layer of instability for a platform already dealing with a lot.
Back to the current proposal — the timing is what makes it especially suspicious. The proposer’s wallet got funded by Railgun shortly before submission. Railgun and Tornado Cash are, functionally, competitors in the crypto privacy space. Whether Railgun itself is involved or whether someone just used Railgun to obscure their own funding trail is unclear. No one’s confirmed anything either way. But the connection is there, and it’s not a good look for the proposal’s credibility.
The $23 million figure keeps coming up in discussions for a reason. That’s the size of the governance address that could potentially be replaced. Lose control of that, and the DAO’s ability to govern itself becomes compromised in a pretty fundamental way. Votes could be steered. Funds could move. And by the time anyone notices, the damage is done.
Caversaccio’s ask is simple: vote no. Whether enough TORN holders are paying attention is a separate question entirely.
The 2023 attack ended badly for the protocol and its token holders. Relayer balances sitting at zero would make the platform effectively unusable for the privacy-seeking users it exists to serve.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who flagged the suspicious Tornado Cash governance proposal?
L2BEAT researchers first raised concerns, followed by ZK researcher Sergey Shemyakov and Pascal Caversaccio from the Security Alliance, who called the proposal malicious.
How much in TORN tokens does the targeted governance address control?
The governance address at risk controls $23 million in TORN tokens, which could be transferred to an attacker-controlled lookalike address if the proposal passes.
