Solana port of TC?

Have you guys considered rolling out on Solana?

There’s no reason TC can’t exist on multiple chains.

They have a solana-eth bridge, so you could probably make your existing token work on both, no need for a new token.

Believe they have all the bits you need, apart from that Eth pre-compiled contract you use, but you could deploy that, or something similar. That would be the hard bit I think. I was actually thinking to do it myself, but it’s too hard for me.

They also have grants.

Getting TC on other chains such as BSC, Solana and Cardano is a double edge sword:


  • increases use and relevance of TC
  • if not TC, another TC-like copycat will be run there


  • usually frowned upon by the ethereum developers’ community as it acknowledges multiple chains
  • these chains are all still highly centralized in terms of who runs nodes, with consequent higher risk

Mixed feelings about it; curious to hear others’ opinions.

1 Like

As much as I dislike BSC, it is the only chain beside Ethereum with some economic activity. While Solana is nice and has potential, it has very little economic activity and therefore Tornado Cash does not make much sense at the moment.

But the biggest deal breaker with Solana is that it is not EVM compatilbe. This means that all the smart-contracts would have to be re-written, re audited, need for new relayer software, new front-end integration, etc… That’s a huge amount of work. Note that BSC is EVM compatible .


So BSC integration could be intesting in your opinion @Rezan ?

I think he’s saying it would be easy…

1 Like

Isn’t it changing though? We are clearly entering a multichain paradigm with many highly regarded DeFi and NFT projects supporting multiple chains and letting the users pick what suits best for them. An analogy is when the first DEXes and AMMs launched and allowed any coin to be added and pools to be created, it seemed crazy and “too open”. Similarly I believe we will soon have the same with chains, putting the decision power in the hands of the users.

I would not be so sure about that. Solana for instance has 500+ nodes. Still far too low in for a multi-billion dollar project, but still much better than many other Ethereum killers. BSC and its 19 nodes is ridiculous, maybe it will change. xDAI has only 19 nodes too afaik, but they are transitioning to public POSDAO. Matic is also an option to be considered.

There definitely needs to be a vetting process. Rejecting all options may be something we regret in the future though.


1 Like

Isn’t it changing though?

Not really, tribalism is a thing amongst etherians and that is the environment where TC devs come from and regularly liaise with. Not saying they will be obstracized if the community (not them) decides to TC to go polyamory with other chains, but still low key frowned upon.

I would not be so sure about that. Solana for instance has 500+ nodes.

The question is, who is running these nodes. Number of nodes per se does not necessarily corresponds to higher degree of decentralization.

I can’t remember the name but I’m pretty sure there are already similar projects running on BSC.

There will be up to 1000 nodes soon, there are already 1000 people ready to run mainnet nodes, but there is an onboarding backlog.

Obvious question - how much decentralisation is enough?

With a PoS network there are two different types of centralisation; 1. nodes, 2. stake. You can see the nodes and delegation here and you can see the stake distribution here. On point 1 it’s obviously not just the raw number but also how spread out the delegations are. Disclosure - I run a validator.

I’m curious, how would one measure that exactly?

One way would be to look at stable coins. USDC 470m, WUSDC 47m, USDT 190m, WUSDT 356m – so about 1b total. No idea if that is considered a lot or not. If you know what it is for BSC I’d be interested to know it.

Or perhaps you think there is a better measure of economic activity?

Hi Guys,

A port of TC into Solana would make lots of sense. The platform is super fast and very low fees. and you have USDT and USDC natively available on the smart contract platform with Rust.

A tentative to implement privacy has been done here:

But you guys would rock if you add Tornado into Solana.

1 Like

What @poma thinks about that ? Could be interesting !

1 Like

I mentioned this in another similar thread, but one thing to give strong consideration to is the fact that if Tornado gets cloned to, for example, Binance Smart Chain, then it would require a new, local Binance-TORN (bTORN) governance token to be created in order to achieve hard consensus on the alt-chain. In other words, our current TORN token would ultimately be useless on these other network or be entirely dependent upon “trusted” bridged (read: not to be trusted)

Personally, I’m neutral to the initiative to clone Tornado to other chains and for them to run totally independent of this original project. Although, I might think it’s interesting if there were an airdrop of (eg bTORN) governance tokens to existing TORN holders. However, I’m probably not going to lead this particular effort. At the same time everything is open source, so if someone wants to do it, then why not just go for it?

1 Like

How about Avalanche?

Very decentralized, supports EVM, quite cheap.

There is a clone of Tornado coming out soon, but Tornado has the name recognition and first comer advantage.

I think porting to other chains might have a significant short-term marketing value, but in the long term it will not be very useful because:

  • Economic activity on most other chains is very low
  • In most cases their value proposition is cheaper transactions, and it will be obsoleted when L2s are released to mainnet (which should happen in the next few months)

Those points above are usually the reason why most other chains support is frowned upon, most core devs understand that their popularity is temporary and based on marketing and the fact that they’ve applied some band-aid solutions to Ethereum problems that either reduce decentralization and/or will backfire in the near future.

So in my opinion spending development time on that is not very efficient. Adding support for other networks still has some time costs even when they are EVM-compatible, because they will have different oracles, relayer network, accounts, etc.