We should stabilize the price of torn by some methods

We should stabilize the price of torn by some methods. Here is my analysis.

First of all, the prerequisite, the more torn participates in the lock-up address the more secure the funds will be.

On December 18, 2020, torn released its governance token.

Here we look at the total torn’s eth pool lock-in statistics

As you can see, the total eth pool of torn grew slowly before the governance token was released. After the release of the governance token, the total eth pool has seen an exponential growth.

In recent days, as the price of torn has fallen, the total eth pool has started to see a significant decline. It is conceivable that if the price of torn continues to fall, then fewer and fewer users will participate in mining, and all those clean money will leave, leaving the remaining dirty money to play with each other inside the pool.

Money always seeks the greatest profit. We have to find a way to keep these funds. We have to find a way to stabilize the price of torn, or at least let the participating users know that the benefits of participating in tornado mining are very good.

Agreed. The whole point is to gather more users in our community and make it grow continuously. The price of tokens might not be the most essential factor we should consider now, but it definitely demonstrates something. As we hope to use tokens for governance, we should get more users involved to make our community stronger. We should not only focus on incentivizing the current token holders but also encouraging more potential users.

Float is relatively tight with new supply originating from mining alone; if other unlocked funds are used carefully downside potential will be kept under control.
On the other hand, we are just getting started with sustainable revenue streams for TORN.
I expect four digits at some stage but it’s a marathon, not a srpint run.
AP mining improves the AS to an extent and can be useful to bootstrap new pools, however let’s not forget that TC was doing its job even before the introduction of AP mining.

No offense intended but I cringe every time I read such assumptions. Tornado Cash has first and foremost privacy in its vision, and one of the five categories in the drop down menu of tornado.cash is called Compliance for a reason.

“Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.”
- A cypherpunk’s Manifesto, March 1993

Sry, I didn’t express it very accurately. A lot of funds stolen through hacking have been transferred to TC in the last few months leading me to subjectively believe that most of the TC is filled with these funds.

There is no doubt about the privacy issue. I will not say that word again in the future.

Another question arises for me.

If there are 100 addresses inside a pool each pledged with 1 eth, and 90 of them are attracted in because of mining rewards, assume that most of them are operating with the same address, i.e. the same address for deposit and withdrawal. If this is the case, then the pool’s role in protecting privacy is significantly weakened.

In this case there are more users involved in mining, but these same address operations do not work well for obfuscation.

Thank you for that.

If there are 100 addresses inside a pool each pledged with 1 eth, and 90 of them are attracted in because of mining rewards, assume that most of them are operating with the same address, i.e. the same address for deposit and withdrawal. If this is the case, then the pool’s role in protecting privacy is significantly weakened.

In this case there are more users involved in mining, but these same address operations do not work well for obfuscation.

Fair concern, users who are in only to farm mining rewards are indeed tendentially less prone to use the protocol in the intended way but this goes to their detriment. Whilst we could argue that on average each Ξ provided by AP miners has less weight on the AS than an Ξ provided by anyone utilizing the platform as per instructions, AP miners are still a net positive on the AS as long as at least a few of them follow some easy steps, which is the case.