[PROPOSAL] GNO:TORN Uni v3 liquidity pool

Hey everyone !

The GNOSIS team would like to partner with the Tornado Cash community.

Therefore I suggest it as usual on the forum, so that we discuss it beforehand and a governance vote is launched to see whether or not the community want this to be set up. (@Marty could do this as a test).

Should GnosisDAO partner with TornadoCash DAO to create GNO:TORN liquidity in Uniswap V3?


TORN token needs liquidity.

Proposed solution:

Here’s how it could be integrated, based on GNO team proposal:
Implementation of a GNO/TORN uniswap v3 liquidity pool, aiming for a 0.1% slippage (base on their proposal)

The pool will add more liquidity, as uniswap will route swap TORN -> ETH through the GNO/TORN pool, so we could have a TORN->GNO->ETH.
And arbitrage will create additional trading volume, which is important for TORN token.

Nowadays, GNO has 4x more liquidity than TORN (monthly trading volume):

  • GNO: $1B trading volume
  • TORN: $230M trading volume

source: Monthly Volume Rankings (Currency) | CoinMarketCap

How ?

GnosisDAO would send 13,000 GNO to the Tornado Multisig and the Tornado DAO would allocate, for example, 165,000 TORN to this operation by sending it to the Tornado Multisig.
(The figures shown here were suggested by the Gnosis team here).

This would require that:
On the side of Tornado Cash community:

  • A governance vote to make a TornadoDAO -> Tornado multisig transfer (165,000 TORN)

On the side of Gnosis community:

What do you think about this proposal?

Have a good day/night !

Hi all! Сode of corresponding governance proposal is ready. https://github.com/MartyWetton/gno-torn-collaboration

I don’t like this proposal.

First, I don’t agree that TORN has a liquidity problem. Looking at stats at CoinGecko the +/-2% Depth numbers look pretty reasonable.

Second, a GNO:TORN pair is weird. I don’t like weird. If there is a problem with TORN trading liquidity (again, I don’t agree that there is) then I bet a simpler way of dealing with that could be found.


I have to be honest. I’ve never understood the need for a protocol to incentivize uniswap liquidity. Unless there was some intent to dump the protocol token onto the market later

Can you please explain your reasoning for this? Why is trading volume important for the TORN token?

And more importantly, how is this important for the Tornado protocol?

I don’t see an earnest conversation happening here. What problem does this solve for the Gnosis community that they would have any interest in doing this?

Respectfully, at this point in time, not much


There is an opposite case - large buyers are unable to secure a position. Imagine someone wants to buy $1M worth of TORN (which is not that much for crypto investors). It’s very hard to do that right now. An aggregated trade through 1inch of 1M USDT->TORN will result in 18% (!) slippage.

Both protocols basically get some free liquidity without selling their token to the market and affecting it’s price.

Why specifically GNO token? Because there are no such proposals with other tokens (yet).


I think you misunderstood my words.
Tornado protocol doesn’t need any liquidity for TORN token, but Tornado DAO & TORN need liquidity to avoid high slippage. As @poma said it earlier, any big buyer should be able to buy a large stack without having to face a high slippage.

Unfortunately today, we do not receive any serious proposal for partnership such as this one. Once again, I thank you for your opinions, it is indeed to collect them and debate around this proposal that I post everything on the forum. It is up to the community to decide at the end!

This is actually a very reasonable point. 18% is egregious for only a $1M buy order

I suppose my only counter to this point is I almost feel the “lack of market liquidity” could be used as an opportunity to create an OTC trade to support another need in the ecosystem: funding…

The DAO treasury could use this as an opportunity to find these whales, sell them TORN OTC at a discount (less than the current market slippage), and use the funds to solve another need in the ecosystem, which includes building more anon-enabling infrastructure

Of course this liquidity pool proposal would be a better solution if no one was interested in actually parting with their TORN directly. But I really do think it could be a good opportunity for funding

1 Like