TAC Protocol offers an interesting long-term concept, aiming to integrate EVM-compatible DeFi solutions into the TON and Telegram ecosystem. However, the token's history (marked by numerous s
TAC Protocol offers an interesting long-term concept, aiming to integrate EVM-compatible DeFi solutions into the TON and Telegram ecosystem. However, the token's history (marked by numerous security incidents within a short timeframe, combined with extreme volatility and low liquidity) makes $TAC an extremely risky speculative asset for most investors.
Until the project demonstrates sustained improvements in security and operational reliability, the risk of capital loss will significantly outweigh potential gains. We believe that $TAC is unsuitable for any purpose other than allocating minimal funds to high-risk speculative trades.
TAC is an EVM-compatible Layer-1 blockchain built primarily on Cosmos SDK and Ethermint technology. The project's key value proposition is enabling developers to deploy existing Solidity applications as Telegram Mini Apps, thereby granting Telegram’s vast user base access to Ethereum ecosystem DeFi services without leaving the messaging app.
To facilitate cross-chain interoperability, the project utilizes a TON adapter; its mechanisms include gas fee payments, network security based on the Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) algorithm, and governance via the native $TAC token.
The project has raised ~$11.5 million from investors such as Hack VC, Animoca Brands, TON Ventures, and others. Its tokenomics entail a total supply of around 10 billion tokens, with approximately 4.8 billion currently in circulation.
$TAC serves as the gas token, staking asset (with a targeted 8–10% APY), and governance token. On the surface, the integration with Telegram’s user base offers a potential distribution advantage that few other chains can match.
The most significant issue facing TAC is its repeated security problems over a compressed timeline.
In May 2026, an attack occurred on the TON–TAC asset bridge due to improper verification of the Jetton wallet code hashes. As a result of the incident, losses in USDT, BLUM, and tsTON totaled approximately $2.85 million. Although most of the funds were subsequently recovered after the attacker returned the majority of the assets (retaining 10% as a reward), this incident exposed significant vulnerabilities in one of the bridge’s key components.
In July 2026, the TAC token experienced a sharp, largely unexplained price crash of ~80–90% over a short period. The team attributed this phenomenon primarily to a cascade of liquidations and limited liquidity, although on-chain patterns led some market participants to wonder whether a coordinated sell-off might have played a role.
Very recently, on August 22, 2026, an attacker exploited a vulnerability in the Cosmos EVM’s general precompilation layer. ~2.985 billion TAC tokens were stolen from the collateral token pool (an escrow account where pledged assets are held).
Network operations were suspended at block 24,671,475. It is important to note that this was a withdrawal of funds, not an inflationary issuance, so the total supply remained unchanged. A vulnerability of the same type also affected other chains using this module, including MANTRA Chain. The team is currently preparing an incident analysis and a plan to resume operations, coordinating its actions with security partners.
Three significant security or operational incidents in roughly four months is a serious red flag. This indicates that critical infrastructure components (the bridge, sequencer logic, and the EVM precompilation layer) have not yet reached a level of reliability that meets institutional standards. For a Layer-1 that positions itself as a secure execution environment for DeFi applications, this track record is particularly damaging to its long-term reputation.
The price chart of $TAC reflects the underlying instability. The token reached an all-time high ~$0.067 in late June 2026. Within roughly two months it had declined more than 97%, bottoming near $0.00113 around the time of the August exploit. Single-day declines of 30–40% have occurred multiple times, and liquidity remains thin relative to circulating supply, amplifying price swings.
The resulting chart shows the classic signs of a micro-cap token in crisis: sharp price spikes driven by news events, followed by steep declines triggered by specific events, interspersed with weak attempts at recovery.
Trading volume typically spikes during sell-offs and remains high relative to market capitalization, which points more to forced liquidations and panic than to steady accumulation of assets. Such dynamics are structurally unstable and make the token extremely vulnerable to further negative catalysts.
Several risks stand out:
Near-term price action is likely to remain highly volatile and sensitive to news flow around the chain restart and post-mortem details. A range between roughly $0.0010 and $0.0025 appears plausible in the coming weeks, with downside risk if recovery efforts disappoint.
Over a three- to six-month horizon, any sustained recovery would require clear evidence of improved security, a successful network restart, and early signs of genuine usage in the Telegram Mini App environment.
IEven under a constructive scenario, a move back toward $0.005–$0.010 would still leave the token substantially below its prior peak and would depend on catalysts that have not yet materialized.
Longer-term, the combination of repeated security failures and a damaged reputation creates a high bar for meaningful re-rating. Without a decisive improvement in operational reliability, $TAC is more likely to remain a low-liquidity, high-volatility token than to develop into a durable store of value or growth asset.
TAC Protocol offers a differentiated narrative centered on Telegram and TON distribution. However, the frequency and severity of recent security incidents, together with the extreme and unstable price chart, make the token a high-risk proposition. For most investors, the asymmetry currently favors further downside or prolonged underperformance rather than a durable recovery.
I would characterize $TAC as suitable only for highly speculative capital that an investor is fully prepared to lose. Until the project demonstrates sustained operational improvements and a clearer path to reliable network security, a cautious stance is warranted.
