Bonzo Lend exploit: all 4,571 ETH went into Tornado Cash — most of it within a day

PublicAML · On-chain investigation · 5 October 2026

On 11 July an attacker borrowed about $9 million from Bonzo Lend, the largest lending market on Hedera, against 250 SAUCE tokens worth a few dollars. The reports written that day followed the money to Ethereum while it was still arriving and stopped at a snapshot: $5.25 million, then $5.8 million, a wallet holding a few thousand ETH. We read the wallet after it went quiet. The final count is 4,571.1 ETH, and none of it is there any more: it went into Tornado Cash in 63 deposits — 4,405 ETH in the first 24 hours, the remainder three days later.

4,571.1 ETH

into Tornado Cash — 63 deposits, 11–14 Jul

≈ $8.2M

at about $1,800 per ETH in July — some 90% of the reported loss

92.64 WBTC

bridged over LayerZero and sold for ETH

0.09 ETH

left on the wallet on 5 Oct

What happened

According to Bonzo’s post-mortem and press accounts, the price feed Bonzo used for the SAUCE token accepted an update carrying an empty signature. The attacker pushed the price up by twelve orders of magnitude, deposited 250 SAUCE and borrowed against it: 6.63 million USDC and about 34.5 million wrapped HBAR, about $9.05 million. Bonzo’s value locked fell 77% within hours; a white hat who took about $1 million during the incident returned it.

PeckShield and Specter flagged the Ethereum side the same day and named two wallets: 0xaf20D792A19fD42dCf697ceBa6100291D96dD93e and 0x9A4966152F6e10b33Cb7a37975e8619816d6a494. Everything below is those two wallets, read on 5 October 2026.

Gas from Tornado, three hours before

The main wallet did not exist until 22:15 UTC on 10 July, when it received 0.995 ETH from Tornado Cash’s 1 ETH pool. The first stolen money reached it at 00:57 on 11 July — under three hours later. The second wallet was created from the first at 01:04 with a 0.005 ETH transfer and served as a side entrance: 14.16 WBTC and about 115 ETH passed through it into the main wallet.

How $8 million crossed from Hedera

The attacker did not use one bridge. The money came in four ways over eleven hours:

Bitcoin over LayerZero. 92.64 WBTC arrived through the LayerZero WBTC adapter in 33 transfers of 1.4 to 5.8 WBTC, a few minutes apart, from 01:32 UTC on. All of it was sold for ether through the 0x settler — 3,133.6 ETH on 11 July and another 156.7 ETH on 14 July.

Ether from Arbitrum and Base. Between 07:12 and 07:21 the Relay bridge delivered 927.3 ETH in nine payments — eight of 99.73 ETH and one of 129.47. For the payments we looked up, Relay’s own records show the sender on the other side was the same address — 100 ETH on Arbitrum, 129.82 ETH on Base. So part of the Hedera money was first bridged to those networks, turned into ether there, and only then brought to Ethereum.

Across and Stargate. Another 133 ETH came through Across at 07:27–07:31, and 7 ETH through Stargate.

Stablecoins. 98,323 USDC and about 75,600 USDT arrived directly and were swapped for ether within hours.

Added up, 4,570.9 ETH came into the main wallet. The figures published on the day were lower because they were snapshots: the $5.25 million count was taken when the wallet held 2,360 ETH and WBTC was still arriving and being sold.

When (UTC, 2026)FromToAmountTx
10 Jul 22:15Tornado … pool)0xaf20D7…6dD93e0.995 ETH
wallet funded from Tornado Cash
0xe85587…41811a
11 Jul 00:57USDC bri…nager)0xaf20D7…6dD93e98,323 USDC
first stolen money to arrive
0xd3c4e4…2864e2
11 Jul 01:080x9A4966…d6a4940xaf20D7…6dD93e37.0 ETH
from the second wallet
0x5f80d2…eaf058
11 Jul 01:32LayerZer…dapter0xaf20D7…6dD93e3.58 WBTC (1st of 27)
first WBTC transfer from Hedera
0x2526aa…d60b97
11 Jul 07:12Relay (f… Base)0xaf20D7…6dD93e99.73 ETH (1st of 9)
ether bridged in from another network by the same address
0xa917fb…2f5f0b
11 Jul 07:27Across0xaf20D7…6dD93e130.63 ETH
through Across
0x811ef2…a73b29
11 Jul 11:200xaf20D7…6dD93e0xd90e2f…24F31b100 ETH (1st of 63)
first deposit into Tornado Cash
0xfb0820…e64f95
14 Jul 10:25LayerZer…dapter0xaf20D7…6dD93e4.49 WBTC
last transfer from Hedera
0x97f716…f8cce9
14 Jul 10:440xaf20D7…6dD93e0xd90e2f…24F31b0.1 ETH (last)
last deposit — wallet empty
0x64e787…389e0b

Sixty-three deposits

The first deposit into Tornado Cash went in at 11:20 UTC on 11 July, seven minutes after the last WBTC was sold. From there the wallet did nothing else: 45 deposits of 100 ETH, 6 of 10, 11 of 1 and one of 0.1 — 4,571.1 ETH in all. 4,405 ETH was in the mixer before the end of 11 July. The last 4.49 WBTC arrived from Hedera on 14 July; it was sold and the final 166.1 ETH followed the same morning.

On 5 October the main wallet holds 0.09 ETH and the second one nothing. Their histories are now crowded with look-alike addresses — 0xaf22…, 0xaf20…, 0x9A49… — and fake tokens named “ETH” and “USDT”, sent by strangers to trick anyone copying an address from the list. Those are not part of the trail.

What is left to act on

On Ethereum, nothing: there is no parked balance to freeze or watch. Roughly $0.8 million of the reported loss never appeared on these two wallets; it was either lost to bridge and swap costs or is still on Hedera, which we did not read.

We have marked both wallets as hack-related in our database. You can check any address against this and our other cases on the address check page.

What this page does not say

It names nobody and does not say who controls any address. The mechanism and the loss figure are Bonzo’s and the press’s account; the two Ethereum wallets were first named by PeckShield and Specter. Arrivals, routes and Tornado totals are ours, read from the chain on 5 October 2026. The dollar figure uses about $1,800 per ETH, the price implied by the reports of 11 July.

Check an address yourself

Free, no sign-up. Paste any address to see whether it is linked to this or any other incident:

Sources: Ethereum chain data via Blockscout and Relay’s public request records, read on 5 October 2026; Bonzo’s post-mortem and press reports for the mechanism and the loss; PeckShield and Specter for the two Ethereum wallets. This is an information resource about transactions between addresses, not financial or legal advice, and it names no individual as responsible for anything.