DEV Community: ton-adoption

MTONGA Full Breakdown: Durov's 7 Steps to Make TON Great Again

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:22 +0000

Make TON Great Again is a seven-step program Pavel Durov launched in spring 2026. As of June 1, four steps are live — the remaining three are undisclosed. In two months, MTONGA has: made the network 10× faster, dropped fees 6×, restored Telegram as the lead driver, and reverted Toncoin’s name to Gram.

This article is the full technical and strategic breakdown of each step: what was actually shipped, what it means, and where TON is going in 2026.

TL;DR — 7 steps in one table

#	Step	Date	Effect
1	Catchain 2.0	Apr 10, 2026	10× speed, sub-second finality
2	6× fee cut	May 1, 2026	~$0.0005 per tx, fixed-fee for micropayments
3	Telegram = top validator	May 4, 2026	Foundation loses operational role
4	Toncoin → Gram	Jun 1, 2026	Native coin rebrand
5	TBD	Summer 2026 (?)	Undisclosed
6	TBD	Fall 2026 (?)	Undisclosed
7	TBD	Late 2026 (?)	Undisclosed

Step 1: Catchain 2.0 — sub-second finality

When: April 10, 2026. What: a rewritten TON consensus algorithm.

Catchain is the BFT consensus that determines the order in which validators sign blocks. Version 1.0 (since 2020) gave a block time of ~2.5 seconds — decent for a blockchain, but inadequate for real-time messenger scenarios.

Catchain 2.0 delivered:

Block time 2.5s → 400ms (6× block-rate increase)
Transaction finality drops to sub-second (previously needed 1–2 confirmation blocks)
Latency reduced 90%+ for high-frequency scenarios

What it means in practice:

Mini Apps in Telegram can now show payments as “instant” (previously a 5–10 second spinner)
Micropayments become practical — paying $0.01 for a sticker no longer means waiting 5 seconds
Trading: market makers gain from lower latency, improving TON DEX liquidity

For the technical detail, see our piece on how sharding works in TON (Catchain is covered there in depth).

Step 2: 6× fee reduction

When: May 1, 2026. What: a new fee model with a fixed base component.

Before May 1, TON fees were dynamic — load-dependent, transaction-type-dependent, storage-dependent. Average fee: about $0.003 for a basic transfer.

After May 1:

Base fee — fixed at 0.00039 TON (~$0.0005 at current prices)
Storage gas — paid separately, but trivially small
Under high load — fee does NOT increase (previously did)

Why this matters:

Micropayments are now viable. With a $0.0005 fee, $0.01–$0.10 payments make sense — previously fees would eat 30%+ of the amount.
In-app payments in Telegram — ads, stickers, tips, paywalls — become economically sane.
Attracting high-frequency apps — gaming, social tipping, NFT mints.

What didn’t change:

Validator commission rates — same
Denomination in TON (now GRAM) — same
Burn mechanism (part of fees gets burned) — still active

Step 3: Telegram becomes the top validator

When: May 4, 2026. What: Telegram launches a validator node large enough to make it the network’s biggest stake-holder.

Durov wrote:

“Fees in TON have dropped 6× — to nearly zero. Next step — Telegram replaces the TON Foundation as the driving force behind TON and becomes its largest validator. The focus shifts to tech superiority.”

This is more than running a node. It’s an operating-model shift:

Before May 4:

TON Foundation (a non-profit in Switzerland/UAE) — primary coordinator
~20% of validator stake held by the Foundation
Foundation funded development, grants, marketing
Telegram kept formal distance

After May 4:

Telegram launched a validator with multi-billion stake (exact figures undisclosed, but per various estimates — the largest in the network)
Telegram took operational lead: development, marketing, releases
TON Foundation remains as a grants/community fund but is no longer the face of the product
A new ton.org site launched with refreshed design

Market reaction:

TON +23% within 24 hours of the announcement
Volume +324% over the same window
Futures open interest +50%

For a deeper analysis of what this means for decentralization, see our piece Telegram takes over TON: the centralization tradeoff.

Step 4: Toncoin → Gram

When: June 1, 2026. What: rebrand of the native coin.

Covered in detail in our main explainer. Short version:

Toncoin → Gram (ticker TON → GRAM)
The network remains TON
No swap, no contract changes
Return to the original 2018 name
3-week transition window

Why it was needed:

Branding. “Gram” is historically associated with Telegram. “Toncoin” — with the community fork. Telegram wants association with itself.
SEC restriction expired. The 5-year ban on using the Gram name has lapsed (from May 2020).
Market signal. “This is our project, we stand behind it.” Telegram no longer masks its role.

What could be in steps 5, 6, 7

Durov hasn’t disclosed. We analyze based on:

His public statements in 2024–2025
Patents Telegram filed in 2025–2026
The contextual MTONGA logic (tech upgrade → brand → monetization)

Hypothesis for step 5: deep Gram integration into Telegram products

Probability: high (70%+)

What could happen:

Gram as the universal Telegram ads currency. Today, advertisers pay in Stars (internal Telegram currency) or in TON via direct contracts. Likely unification — all settlements in Gram, Stars becoming a stable-derivative.
Gram staking as a Telegram Premium mechanism. Stake Gram > N → automatic Telegram Premium subscription. This would function as a utility staker’s premium.
Gram as a buyback/burn currency for Telegram Stars revenue. Telegram uses part of revenue to buy back Gram, creating deflationary pressure.

Hypothesis for step 6: Layer-2 or additional sharding

Probability: medium (40–50%)

What could happen:

Telegram L2 launch — a separate chain on top of TON, optimized for messenger scenarios (chat payments, mass Mini App activity)
Additional shardchains — dedicated shards for specific Telegram products (Mini Apps, ads, NFTs)
AppKit / Builders Portal 3.0 — easier app onboarding to TON

Hypothesis for step 7: Bitcoin bridge Teleport + ZK extensions

Probability: medium-low (30–40%)

Telegram mentioned in 2025 that TON would be among the first L1s with a trust-less Bitcoin bridge. Based on zk-proofs and multi-party computation.

Teleport mainnet — summer 2026
ZK extensions — for private payments in Telegram, transaction privacy
AgenticKit — framework for AI agents on TON

Detailed forecast and reasoning in our MTONGA steps 5–7 prediction.

What MTONGA means for each cohort

For Toncoin/Gram holders

Positive:

Network is technically faster and cheaper
Brand gains the backing of the world’s most recognizable messenger company
Liquidity grows on narrative-driven pumps

Negative:

Centralization — the network now depends on one corporation
Regulatory risk concentrates in a single point (if SEC/EU put pressure, they pressure Telegram)

For developers

Positive:

Sub-second finality — a real UX sea change
Microfees open new scenarios
Telegram marketing brings traffic

Negative:

Higher dependence on one ecosystem (Telegram can change rules anytime)
TON Foundation loses operational momentum (slowing independent development)

For the market

Short-term: pump on each step (10–25%)
Long-term: depends on Telegram’s execution

For regulators

Risk concentrates in one jurisdiction (where Telegram is governed)
Possible new SEC/EU claims that Gram is a “de-facto Telegram security”

Cadence and pace

Step	Date	Gap
1	Apr 10, 2026	—
2	May 1, 2026	21 days
3	May 4, 2026	3 days
4	Jun 1, 2026	28 days

Pace — roughly one step per month. If sustained, step 5 lands in early July 2026, step 6 in August, step 7 in September. Speculative, but the cadence is telling.

Context: Durov’s 2024 arrest in France

In August 2024, Durov was arrested in France over insufficient Telegram moderation (terrorism, drug trafficking, child safety). The case dragged through 2025–2026; Telegram ultimately agreed to expanded law-enforcement cooperation.

In the MTONGA context, this creates a mixed signal: on one hand, Telegram becomes more transparent as a corporation (reducing TON’s regulatory risk); on the other, it drifts from the original “cryptography + privacy” stance that attracted early users.

What the Foundation says

The TON Foundation has not given a detailed reaction to MTONGA at the time of writing. Internally, the Foundation signed off on all steps (per The Block, April 2026), but publicly stays in the background.

Foundation logic:

Preserve the grant and community function
Don’t publicly resist — Telegram brings traffic and capital
Move toward an “advisory body” rather than “driving force”

This is an example of how decentralized governance in practice yields to corporate control when the corporation can offer more resources than the community.

Bottom line

MTONGA is the most significant restructuring of TON in the network’s history. Four of seven steps shipped in two months. Steps 5, 6, 7 likely involve Gram monetization via Telegram products, technical scaling, and expansion via bridges/AI.

For long-term holders, the key takeaway: TON 2026 is a different project than TON 2024. More speed, more traffic, more centralization. A trade-off the market is, for now, accepting positively.

Further reading:

Native Gram vs Gram Jetton: How to Tell Them Apart and Avoid Losing Money

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:20 +0000

A problem appeared in the TON ecosystem on June 1, 2026, and it will cost users real money: two completely different assets now share the GRAM ticker. One is the native coin of the network (formerly Toncoin), market cap ~$15 billion. The other is a community-team jetton with a market cap of ~$6 million. They are unrelated.

This piece walks through, step by step, how to tell them apart, how to avoid buying the wrong one, and how to spot “cheap Gram” scams in DMs.

×
The main rule

Native Gram (ex-Toncoin) trades at several dollars. The Gram jetton trades at fractions of a cent. The price gap is roughly 1000×. If someone offers “Gram at $0.01,” they’re either selling the jetton dressed up as native, or it’s a straight scam.

A tale of two Grams

Native Gram (ex-Toncoin)

What it is: the native coin of The Open Network (TON), analogous to ETH for Ethereum
When it appeared: 2021, under the name Toncoin (after the failed Telegram ICO in 2018–2020)
Renamed: June 1, 2026, as MTONGA step 4
Ticker: GRAM (previously TON)
Market cap: ~$15 billion at rebrand time
Total supply: ~5.1 billion GRAM
Where traded: every major exchange — Binance, Bybit, OKX, Kraken, Bitget, MEXC, HTX
Contract: native — no jettonMaster address (it’s a base asset of the network)

Jetton Gram (community PoW token)

What it is: a jetton token on top of TON, issued by an anonymous team
When it appeared: 2024
Marketing positioning: “Bitcoin of TON” — proof-of-work mining of the jetton
Ticker: GRAM
Market cap: ~$6 million (as of June 1, 2026)
Total supply: 5 million GRAM
Where traded: Bybit, MEXC, Bitget, and TON DEXes (STON.fi, DeDust)
Contract: jettonMaster EQB... — verifiable on tonviewer.com

The key visual difference

Native Gram is the base asset of the network. In wallets it displays as the main balance. No jetton icon, no contract address.

The Gram jetton is a TEP-74 token (same standard as USDT-TON, NOT, DOGS, stTON). It sits in the jetton list below the native balance, has its own icon, and when sending, the gas fee is paid in native (Gram) — not in the jetton.

In Tonkeeper this looks like:

[Top of wallet screen]
  1234.56 GRAM       ← this is native Gram (ex-Toncoin)
  ≈ $4,567

[Token list below]
  ┌────────────────────┐
  │ 🌑 GRAM (jetton)   │ ← this is the Gram jetton, a separate token
  │ 100,000  ≈ $260    │
  └────────────────────┘

If you intend to buy native Gram, it should sit at the very top, as the “primary” balance. If you want the jetton, it lives in the list of other tokens.

How to verify you’re buying native, not the jetton

On an exchange

Open the asset page (e.g., CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap).
Look for the “Contract address” or “Contracts” section.
Native Gram: no contract address listed — it’s a base network asset.
Gram jetton: a jettonMaster address in EQB... format is shown.

If you see GRAM on CoinMarketCap with a contract attached — that’s the jetton. If there’s no contract address (“Native asset”) — that’s the native coin.

In a TON wallet

In Tonkeeper, tap “Send.”
Pick the asset:
- Native Gram — at the top of the list, no jetton icon, no contract info.
- Gram jetton — further down, with a round icon and text “Jetton master: EQB…”
If uncertain, tap the asset for details. Native Gram shows “Native asset of TON.” The jetton shows the master address.

Via an explorer

Open tonviewer.com or tonscan.org and paste your address:

Native Gram — the main balance, listed as “Toncoin” or “Gram” with no contract specified.
Gram jetton — a separate card in the jetton list, with the jettonMaster address visible.

Typical post-rebrand scam patterns

Since June 1, 2026, we’ve spotted at least four active scams exploiting the Gram confusion:

Scam 1: “I’ll sell you Gram cheaper than the exchange”

A DM from an unknown account on Telegram: “Hey, I have Gram, will sell at $0.50 vs the exchange $5. P2P via bot.” What they actually sell is the jetton Gram (which trades at ~$0.001 on the market), at a wildly inflated price.

How to avoid: never buy native Gram in DMs. If you really want a discount, use a legitimate P2P (Bybit, OKX, Crypto Bot), where the ticker is verified automatically.

Scam 2: “Swap to new Gram via this site”

A site with the Tonkeeper/MyTonWallet visual design that “helps” you swap Toncoin to Gram. In reality it’s a phishing front — you’re asked for the seed phrase to “migrate,” and within seconds your wallet is drained.

How to avoid: no swap is required. Toncoin and Gram are the same asset under different names. Any site asking for the seed “for migration” is a scammer.

Scam 3: “Pre-listing Gram on new DEX”

Channels and groups offer “pre-listed Gram” at a special price before listing. In reality they’re selling the jetton.

How to avoid: native Gram (ex-Toncoin) has been listed on every major exchange since 2021 under the TON ticker. There is no “pre-listing” period.

Scam 4: “Fake wallets with Gram support”

Clones of Tonkeeper/MyTonWallet appear in App Store / Google Play with “Updated for Gram!” tags. Inside is a wallet that steals seeds.

How to avoid: update only via the in-app links from your existing official wallet. Don’t search “new version of Tonkeeper” — pick the one your existing wallet points you to.

Lessons from prior rebrands

History rhymes. Three cases where ticker confusion cost users real money:

Matic → POL (Polygon, 2024)

The Matic-to-POL rebrand spawned dozens of meme-tokens with similar names: POLY, POL2, MATIC2.0. Buyers on fresh DEX listings without deep contract verification lost money.

Crypto.com Coin → CRO (mainnet restart, 2022)

After the CRO mainnet restart, 5+ meme-tokens with CRO ticker appeared on BSC and Solana. Community losses were estimated in the low millions.

FTM → S (Sonic, 2024)

The Fantom → Sonic rebrand surfaced scam SONIC tokens on several networks. Those buying “on the news” without verifying the contract lost funds.

The rule in every case: verify the contract address, not the name.

Safety checklist

Before any Gram purchase, run through this list:

Buying on an exchange? Check that it’s a “native” asset on the CoinMarketCap page (no contract address). If there’s a contract — it’s the jetton.
Buying via P2P? Only via the exchange’s built-in P2P (Bybit, OKX, Bitget). Never via DMs.
See a “Gram swap / migration” site? It’s always a scam. No swap is required.
Got a DM offering “cheap Gram”? It’s either the jetton (at a markup) or a flat scam.
Wallet showing an odd balance? Open tonviewer.com and verify what you actually have.

For broader TON-ecosystem safety, see our piece on drainer sites and how they work and how to farm TON drops safely.

Summary

Native Gram (ex-Toncoin) and the Gram jetton are two completely different assets sharing one ticker. Distinguishing factors:

Price: $5 vs $0.001 (~1000× gap)
Type: native coin vs jetton (TEP-74)
Market cap: ~$15B vs ~$6M
Origin: Telegram / TON Foundation vs an anonymous community team
Where traded: every major exchange vs select DEXes and a few CEXes

The single most important rule — verify the contract. If the asset has a jettonMaster — it’s not the native coin. If no contract address — it’s the native one.

If you found this useful, also read our main explainer on the Toncoin → Gram rebrand and the full history of TON from Gram to 2026.

Gram Taxes in Russia After the Toncoin Rebrand: A Step-by-Step Guide

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:18 +0000

After the Toncoin → Gram rebrand announcement on June 1, 2026, the editorial team started getting questions: is the rebrand taxable, how to report it in 3-NDFL, how crypto-holder reporting in Russia is changing. This article is the comprehensive breakdown with references to current Russian tax law.

i
Important

This article is general orientation, not individual tax advice. Every case is unique (residency, transaction sizes, source of funds). For significant amounts, consult a tax advisor specializing in crypto.

Note for English-language readers: this piece targets Russian residents and addresses the specifics of Russian tax law. Many principles apply broadly to other jurisdictions (a rebrand isn’t a taxable event in any major regime), but the procedural mechanics — filing forms, FNS practice, exchange reporting — are Russia-specific.

The headline answer: rebrand ≠ taxable

Short answer: the Toncoin → Gram rebrand creates no tax liability.

Why:

A rebrand is a name change on the same asset
No income arises (no rubles or other valuation received)
Cost basis (initial purchase value) doesn’t change
Legally not a disposal under Russian Tax Code article 41

This is uncontested in Russian practice (and in any developed tax jurisdiction). The same applied to the Matic → POL rebrand in 2024 — no tax service raised any new requirements, because no taxable event arose.

When tax actually arises

A taxable disposal arises in four cases:

1. Selling Gram for rubles

The most obvious case. You sell Gram on an exchange (Bybit, OKX, MEXC) via P2P, via a crypto bot, or through a Russian exchange.

Tax calculation:

Income = Sale price × Quantity
Expense = Cost basis (purchase price) × Quantity
Tax base = Income − Expense − Documented exchange fees
NDFL = Base × 13% (up to 2.4M ₽/year) or 15% (above)

Example:

Bought 100 Gram (then Toncoin) in January 2026 at $4 (≈ 380 ₽/Gram at exchange rate 95)
Sell 100 Gram in August 2026 at $5 (≈ 500 ₽/Gram at rate 100)
Income: 50,000 ₽
Expense: 38,000 ₽
Base: 12,000 ₽
NDFL 13%: 1,560 ₽

2. Swapping Gram for another token

Unlike the common “swap = not a disposal” assumption, in Russia a crypto-to-crypto swap is a disposal:

Swapping Gram → USDT — you dispose of Gram (at market price in rubles at the time)
New USDT cost basis = value of disposed Gram at swap time

Analogous to the IRS approach in the US, EU Tax law, and most other jurisdictions. Every swap = taxable event.

3. Paying for goods/services in Gram

If you paid with Gram for goods or services (Telegram Premium, Stars, ads, an NFT), that’s also a disposal. Tax base = market value of disposed Gram minus cost basis.

4. Receiving Gram as income

If you receive Gram as:

Salary / fee
Staking rewards
Airdrop
Mining rewards
Telegram-channel ad revenue

— that’s income in kind, taxed at market price on the date received.

What does NOT trigger tax

The following are not disposals:

Buying Gram (with rubles or another token) — not income, it’s an expense
Transfer between your own wallets — not income
The Toncoin → Gram rebrand — not income
Holding without transactions — not income
Staking with reinvestment — debatable; many tax advisors treat reinvested staking as non-taxable until withdrawal

How to report in 3-NDFL

If you had a Gram disposal during the year (e.g., a sale), you file 3-NDFL by April 30 of the following year.

Section: “Income from property disposal”

Source of income: “Digital currency disposal”
Income amount: total proceeds from Gram sales in rubles (at CBR rate on each transaction date)
Expense amount: cost basis of sold Gram + exchange fees

How to convert to rubles

All crypto operations are converted to rubles at the Central Bank of Russia rate on the operation date. If you sold Gram for USDT, first convert USDT to dollars (1:1), then dollars to rubles at the CBR rate.

The FNS doesn’t accept “USDT/RUB exchange rates” — you need the CBR rate.

Required documents

Transaction history from the exchange (CSV export)
Purchase confirmations (bank statements, P2P receipts)
Fee confirmations
Cost basis calculation using FIFO (first-in, first-out) — standard for crypto in Russia

Services for preparing the report

CoinTracker — English, expensive, accurate
Koinly — Russian UI available
CryptoTaxRussia — specialized for Russian tax law
Self-prepared in Excel — for simple cases (1–2 exchanges, up to 100 transactions)

Changes for 2025–2026: the new Digital Currency Law

On January 1, 2025, the “On Digital Currencies” law entered force (amendments to the Russian Tax Code). Key provisions:

Recognition of cryptocurrency as property

Digital currency (including TON/Gram) is property for tax purposes. This codifies what previously operated via FNS interpretive guidance, now with clear legal basis.

Specific accounting rules

Cost basis method — FIFO (mandatory)
Conversion rate — CBR rate on the operation date
Documented acquisition expenses are deductible

Russian exchange licensing

Since 2025, Russian crypto exchanges (where they exist) must be licensed by the CBR and report client data and transactions to the FNS.

Important: international exchanges (Bybit, OKX, MEXC) don’t fall under this licensing, but client information can theoretically be requested via CRS / TIEA.

Mandatory ownership declaration (from 2027?)

From 2027, a mandatory crypto-holdings declaration is planned, analogous to the foreign-account declaration. Exact form in development, but the principle — reporting all cryptocurrencies held as of January 1 each year.

Special cases

Gram mining

Native Gram doesn’t mine (PoS, not PoW). But if you mined the Gram jetton (PoW community token), that’s income in kind at receipt time, plus a disposal at sale.

See our piece on TON / Gram mining.

Staking via Tonstakers / bemo / Hipo

Staking rewards are income in kind. The FNS typically recognizes the taxable receipt moment as when rewards become available for withdrawal (not the continuous accrual moment).

For instance, if you have 100 Gram staked via Tonstakers earning 0.5 Gram/day in rewards, the taxable event arises at unstake (when rewards become available).

Gram airdrop

Airdrop is income in kind at receipt time, at market price on the date.

Receiving Gram as Russian salary

If your employer pays in Gram, that’s salary in kind. 13% income tax plus contributions (if formalized as an employment contract).

Risks and penalties

What if I don’t declare?

20% penalty on the unpaid tax amount (Tax Code article 122)
Late-payment interest at 1/300 of the refinancing rate per day
Additional 40% penalty if intentional

Systematic violations may lead to criminal liability (Criminal Code article 198 — tax evasion), but the threshold is a “large amount” (over 13.5 million rubles unpaid over 3 years for an individual).

How does the FNS actually check?

In 2025–2026, FNS crypto activity intensified:

Automated monitoring of Russian bank operations
P2P queries via mirrored transactions
Cooperation with international exchanges via CRS
Targeted audits on large operations

Audit targets typically are operations above 1M ₽ during the year, plus transactions with a clear fiscal footprint.

Practical advice

If you “just hodl” Gram

No declaration required
Just keep purchase receipts for future cost basis
Be ready for a possible mandatory holdings declaration from 2027

If you trade actively

Use CryptoTaxRussia or Koinly
File 3-NDFL annually
Save all CSV exports from exchanges
For amounts of 5M+ ₽, hire a tax advisor

If you earn in crypto (freelance, trading)

Consider registering an Individual Entrepreneur (IE) on OSNO or USN (6% “income”)
Bookkeeping support is a must
Document every operation

Sources

Russian Tax Code part 2, article 41 (“Income recognition principles”)
“On Digital Currency” Law (July 31, 2025, No. 256-FZ)
FNS interpretive letter No. BS-3-11/1543@ (2024)
Russian Ministry of Finance, letter series 2024–2026

Further reading:

Full Circle: From Gram 2018 to Gram 2026 — The History of One Name

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:17 +0000

On June 1, 2026, Pavel Durov restored the original name of the native coin of the TON network — Gram. The same name under which Telegram raised $1.7 billion in 2018, lost to the SEC in 2020, and abandoned the project.

Eight years. Two launches. One token.

This is the detailed rebrand timeline, with the nuances — legal, technical, and human. What happened in 2018, why the name went away in 2020, and why it’s back now.

2017: the birth of Gram

In December 2017, Telegram published a technical whitepaper titled Telegram Open Network. The document was authored by Nikolai Durov — Telegram’s chief technical architect and Pavel’s older brother.

The idea: build a third-generation blockchain capable of millions of TPS, anchor it to a messenger with 200+ million users, and roll out payment infrastructure on top of Telegram.

Whitepaper architecture:

Masterchain — the coordinator chain
Workchains — parallel specialized networks
Shards — dynamic load splitting

And three token types in the original plan:

Gram — primary native coin (name from “gram,” a small unit of weight — the image of small, easily transferable value)
Gram wallet-bound tokens — for native Telegram services
Gimmick tokens — Neo GAS analogue, technical overlay

Only the first made it to production — Gram itself.

2018: the $1.7 billion ICO

In February and March 2018, Telegram ran a private ICO — two rounds selling Gram to accredited investors:

Round 1 (January–February): $850 million, $0.37 per Gram
Round 2 (March): $850 million, $1.33 per Gram

Total $1.7 billion — the second-largest ICO in history after EOS ($4.2B).

Investors included top-tier VC firms (Sequoia, Benchmark, Lightspeed), Russian private investors, accredited high-net-worth investors across the US, Europe, and Asia. No retail ICO — qualified investors only.

Telegram said tokens would be distributed after the October 2019 mainnet launch.

2019: the SEC stops the launch

October 11, 2019, 8 days before the announced launch, the U.S. SEC filed suit against Telegram Group Inc. and TON Issuer Inc.

The SEC’s position: selling Gram to American investors constituted an unregistered securities offering under the Securities Act of 1933.

!
The Howey test — the heart of the SEC case

The Howey test determines whether an asset is an investment contract (and therefore a security). It requires four elements: (1) investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profit, (4) from the efforts of others. Per the SEC, the Gram sale checked all four — therefore registration was required.

The SEC obtained a temporary restraining order halting token distribution two weeks before the planned launch.

In March 2020, federal judge P. Kevin Castel sided with the SEC and issued a preliminary injunction against Gram distribution. Telegram tried to appeal — unsuccessfully.

2020: Telegram walks away

May 12, 2020, Pavel Durov published a post:

“We have made the difficult decision to abandon TON.”

Telegram withdrew the appeal and signed a settlement with the SEC:

Refund investors $1.224 billion (net of already-distributed amounts)
Pay $18.5 million civil penalty
Do not issue Gram tokens in any form for at least 5 years

Most investors received their money back in 2020–2021 (either the full amount or 72% if they opted into a discounted debt instrument).

That closed the “Gram by Telegram” chapter.

2020: the community picks up the code

Telegram abandoned the project but open-sourced the code (Apache 2.0). Several independent teams immediately started running forks:

Free TON — launched in May 2020, led by TON Labs (Mikhail Pomortsev and team)
NewTON — a parallel fork
Several smaller forks — without meaningful adoption

Free TON won on the back of more contributors and faster validator bootstrapping. By August 2020, the network had stabilized.

The native coin was renamed Toncoin to legally distance from the Gram/SEC history. In September 2021, Free TON held a community vote and renamed the network itself to The Open Network (TON), keeping the coin as Toncoin.

The formal governance moved to TON Foundation — a non-profit headquartered in Switzerland (with operations partially shifted to the UAE by 2024).

2021–2023: the quiet recovery

The “Toncoin without Telegram” era lasted from 2020 to 2023 — nearly three years.

During this period, TON:

Got listed on major exchanges (OKX, KuCoin, MEXC, Bitget, Bybit — 2022)
Hit $5 billion market cap by late 2023
Launched the Mini App platform via TON Connect
Attracted non-resident developers through Foundation grants

Telegram formally kept its distance from the network but informally integrated a TON wallet into the messenger (Wallet by Telegram, 2023) and began supporting TON payments.

2024–2025: Telegram and TON quietly converge

In 2024–2025, the line between “the independent TON network” and “Telegram” started dissolving:

2024: Telegram integrated Fragment usernames (via TON Domains)
2024: launched Stars — an internal Telegram currency, initially fully separate from TON, but later allowed Stars ↔ TON conversion
2024: Notcoin, Hamster Kombat, and the tap-to-earn wave brought tens of millions of wallets to TON
2025: Durov mentions TON in every Telegram quarterly update
2025: the SEC restriction on the Gram name expires (5 years from May 2020)

2026: MTONGA and the return of Gram

In spring 2026, Durov launched Make TON Great Again (MTONGA) — a seven-step program reactivating TON through Telegram’s resources:

Step	When	What
1	April 10, 2026	Catchain 2.0 — sub-second finality, 10× speed
2	May 1, 2026	Fee reduction 6× (~$0.0005 per tx)
3	May 4, 2026	Telegram replaces Foundation as driving force, becomes largest validator
4	June 1, 2026	Toncoin → Gram rebrand
5	TBD	Not disclosed
6	TBD	Not disclosed
7	TBD	Not disclosed

Step 4 is more than cosmetic. It is the formal return of Telegram to the project’s identity. The Toncoin name was a legal shield during the years when Telegram couldn’t use “Gram.” That restriction expired in 2025, and Telegram reclaimed the original name.

Legal distinctions: Gram 2018 vs Gram 2026

Two different assets, legally:

Gram 2018 (blocked by SEC)

Issuer: Telegram Group Inc. (British Virgin Islands)
Legal form: investment contract (per SEC)
Buyer agreement: SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens)
Telegram obligations: launch mainnet, deliver tokens by a stated date
Howey test: passed (per SEC) — making it a security

Gram 2026 (current)

Issuer: none (decentralized network, native asset)
Legal form: cryptocurrency (per IRS/FinCEN), commodity (CFTC)
Buyer agreement: none
Obligations: none — nobody is legally “required” to develop the network
Howey test: fails — no investment contract, no issuer-promoter relationship

From the SEC’s perspective, Gram 2026 has nothing in common with Gram 2018 beyond the name. Telegram doesn’t issue it, doesn’t sell it, doesn’t control its issuance. Legally, simply a different asset.

What Durov himself says

In his June 1, 2026 announcement, Durov wrote:

“We’re returning to our roots and starting a new chapter. This is step 4 of 7 to make TON great again.”

Minimal public detail. But in the context of Durov’s prior 2024–2025 statements, the logic emerges:

Telegram as a platform should have a native currency, and that currency should be identifiable.
“Gram” is the brand that investors and users have associated with Telegram since 2018.
“Toncoin” is the community-era brand, associated with the TON Foundation, not Telegram.
Renaming to Gram is a signal: “Telegram stands behind this, not the Foundation.”

What this means in practice

For the regular holder — nothing. Balances, addresses, seed phrases, wallets, exchanges — all stay the same. See our holder checklist.

For the market — the rebrand reinforces the “TON = Telegram’s crypto” narrative. This drives the market cap up (a ~10% jump after the announcement).

For decentralization — a significant shift toward centralization. The network is now explicitly associated with one corporation. See our centralization analysis.

What’s next

MTONGA steps 5, 6, 7 are undisclosed. Reasonable hypotheses:

Deep Gram integration into Telegram Premium and advertising
A possible Telegram-native L2 on TON
Trust-less Bitcoin bridge (Teleport)

For details, see our forecast on MTONGA steps 5–7.

Sources

Telegram Open Network whitepaper (December 2017)
SEC v. Telegram Group Inc., No. 19-cv-09439 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Settlement Order (June 2020)
Pavel Durov post, May 12, 2020 (“We have made the difficult decision to abandon TON”)
Pavel Durov post, June 1, 2026 (rebrand announcement)
TON Foundation blog (2021–2026)
BeInCrypto, Unchained, CryptoBriefing — 2026 reporting

If you want to dive deeper into the legal side, see SEC vs CFTC: Toncoin classification in the US and our history of TON from Gram to 2026.

Durov vs SEC: 7 Years from Blocking Gram to Bringing It Back

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:15 +0000

Seven years between blocking the Gram ICO in October 2019 and officially returning the Gram name on June 1, 2026, mark the longest and most consequential crypto-industry standoff with the US SEC. This period shaped not only the fate of Telegram and TON but also a precedent for the entire industry: what constitutes an investment contract in the ICO era, where the boundaries of decentralization sit, where the line between cryptocurrency and security really is.

This piece walks through the full timeline, focusing on the legal arguments, the SEC’s evolution from 2019 to 2026, and the lessons Durov took from this battle.

Timeline of key events

Date	Event
December 2017	Telegram publishes the TON whitepaper
January–March 2018	Private Gram ICO, $1.7 billion
October 2019	SEC files suit against Telegram
November 2019	First hearing in the Southern District of New York
March 2020	Preliminary injunction — court ban on distribution
May 2020	Telegram abandons the project
June 2020	Settlement: $1.224B refund + $18.5M penalty + 5-year ban
May 2020	Community launches Free TON
January 2025	New US administration, SEC softens stance
February 2025	5-year SEC restriction on Gram expires
February–March 2025	SEC drops cases against Coinbase, Binance
April–June 2026	MTONGA, Toncoin → Gram rebrand

2017–2018: ICO as an investment contract

When Telegram prepared the Gram ICO in 2017–2018, the legal team worked on a structure they believed did not fall under US securities law:

Accredited investors only. No retail ICO — qualified investors only.
SAFT structure. Simple Agreement for Future Tokens — a legal instrument designed specifically to avoid security classification. The SAFT idea: selling SAFTs is a security, but the tokens received post-launch are a commodity.
Reg D registration. Telegram registered the ICO under Regulation D, the private-offering exemption.

The SEC found the whole construction insufficient:

Despite “accredited only,” some tokens were resold to secondary investors without proper restrictions
The SAFT theory fails if the future-token situation itself satisfies the Howey test
Reg D registration is valid only if anti-resale conditions are observed

2019: the SEC files suit

October 11, 2019 — the SEC files suit in the Southern District of New York (SEC v. Telegram Group Inc., No. 19-cv-09439).

The SEC’s main arguments:

Gram = investment contract. Howey test satisfied on all four prongs. Buyers invested money (1), in a common enterprise — Telegram’s blockchain (2), expecting profit (3), from the efforts of Telegram’s team (4).
Secondary market reasonably expected. Telegram should have known investors would resell Gram to retail right after mainnet — making it an unregistered public offering.
No valid exemption. Reg D doesn’t apply because Telegram didn’t prevent secondary resale.

Telegram countered:

Gram = utility token. The token’s purpose is paying network fees, not investment.
Decentralized network. Post-launch, Telegram doesn’t control Gram — there’s no “efforts of others” in the Howey test.
No primary public offering. SAFT is a security (agreed), but Gram is not.

2020: Telegram loses

March 24, 2020, Judge P. Kevin Castel issues a preliminary injunction siding with the SEC:

“The Court finds that, in the context of that scheme, the resale of Grams into the secondary public market would be an integral part of the sale of securities without a required registration statement.”

The judge’s key logical move: SAFT + Gram together = one integrated security offering — you can’t split them.

This is catastrophic for the SAFT theory, which had been the hope of an entire sector of crypto projects.

May 12, 2020, Durov publishes “We have made the difficult decision to abandon TON.” Telegram withdraws the appeal and moves toward settlement.

Settlement: the cost of the lesson

June 2020 — final court order, key terms:

Refund of $1.224 billion to investors (net of already distributed)
Civil penalty of $18.5 million to the SEC
5-year ban on issuing Gram in any form (until May 2025)
3-year obligation to notify the SEC of any Telegram crypto projects (until June 2023)
Distribution restrictions — cannot deliver tokens even to existing investors

This is the largest SEC settlement in crypto ever, with the toughest terms.

The silent era 2020–2024

During this period, Telegram:

Open-sourced TON under Apache 2.0
Distanced itself from Free TON / TON
Made no official integrations with TON
Fully isolated the blockchain product line from the messenger

But:

Wallet by Telegram (2022) — effectively a TON wallet, dressed up as a “third-party product”
Premium (2023) — separate Stars currency, legally unrelated to TON
Notcoin, Hamster Kombat (2024) — TON-based apps, but Telegram “doesn’t endorse them”

This is strategic ambiguity — Telegram leverages TON infrastructure without breaching SEC obligations.

2024–2025: SEC softens

January 2025 — new US administration. Appointments:

Paul Atkins — SEC chair (former Patomak Global Partners partner, pro-crypto)
Hester Peirce — head of the SEC crypto task force (“Crypto Mom,” pro-innovation)

Early SEC actions:

February 2025: Coinbase case dropped without action
March 2025: Binance suit withdrawn
April 2025: spot Ethereum ETFs approved (following spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024)
May 2025: SEC formally declares memecoins are NOT securities

In parallel:

FIT 21 (Financial Innovation and Technology Act) passes Congress
CLARITY Act under discussion, drawing the security/commodity line
Stablecoin regulation (GENIUS Act) approaches final version

Expiration of the SEC’s Gram ban

May 2025 — the 5-year SEC ban on issuing Gram expires. Telegram is legally free to use the Gram name.

But: Telegram doesn’t issue a new Gram. Instead, in 2026, Durov rebrands the existing Toncoin to Gram. Legally this is a fundamentally different operation.

Legal distinction: Gram 2018 vs Gram 2026

Gram 2018 (security per court ruling)

Issuer: Telegram Group Inc. (BVI)
Sale: primary sale via SAFT
Buyer expectation: profit from Telegram efforts
Issuer obligations: launch mainnet, deliver tokens
Howey test: passed (per SEC and court)

Gram 2026 (not a security under any reasonable interpretation)

Issuer: none (decentralized network, native asset)
Sale: no sale — just a rebrand of an existing decentralized asset
Buyer expectation: none (no new issuance)
Issuer obligations: none
Howey test: doesn’t apply (no investment contract)

A chasm separates these two Gram versions under SEC classification.

Why the 2026 rebrand is legally safe

Legal analysis of the Toncoin → Gram rebrand:

Argument 1: there is no sale

A rebrand is not a sale. Existing holders don’t exchange tokens, don’t receive new tokens, don’t pay Telegram. Display name simply changes.

The legal category of the rebrand is transparent re-labeling, not a security offering. Unambiguously outside SEC regulatory scope.

Argument 2: decentralized

Gram 2026 is the native coin of a decentralized network where Telegram is one of ~350 validators (largest, but still one of many). This isn’t a centralized corporate cryptocurrency — therefore the Howey “efforts of others” prong doesn’t apply.

Argument 3: 2025 SEC position

Under the new administration, the SEC publicly stated memecoins aren’t securities. If a memecoin with no utility is not a security, then Gram with real utility (network gas, staking, DeFi) certainly isn’t either.

Argument 4: SAFT lesson learned

In 2018, Telegram tried to bypass the Howey test via the SAFT structure and lost. In 2026, Telegram isn’t doing a new offering — no SAFT, no private sale, no crowdfund. Just rename of an existing asset.

Lessons for the crypto industry

The Telegram vs SEC case left four lessons that still shape practice:

Lesson 1: SAFT theory is not enough

After Telegram, SAFT structures became legally risky. Many projects shifted to fully decentralized launches (mainnet → token → token distribution to network users) — Optimism, Arbitrum, Wormhole.

Lesson 2: Decentralization is a spectrum

“Sufficiently decentralized” is a fuzzy test. Ethereum (per the SEC’s Hinman speech, 2018) — sufficient. Telegram-2018’s level — insufficient. Where the line sits remains debated.

Lesson 3: Pre-sale + retail = risk

Any structure with private sale + retail expectation is toxic to the SEC. The era of “private VCs at $0.10, retail at $1.50” ended after Telegram. New launches avoid that private-sale tier with such markup.

Lesson 4: Better quiet than loud

Post-2020, Durov shifted to minimal communications about crypto. The “don’t attract regulator attention” style became standard for project leadership.

Future risks for Gram

Despite the legal safety of the rebrand, long-term risks exist:

Risk 1: if Telegram conducts a primary sale of new Gram

For instance, if MTONGA step 5 involves a secondary Gram emission via some Telegram product — that could revive the Howey test.

Risk 2: if the SEC changes course

The new administration is in for a while, but not forever. A future Congress may restore a tough stance. And Telegram with the largest validator stake is the main target.

Risk 3: if the EU takes a harder line

The EU has MiCA and a more structured crypto approach. If the EU classifies Gram as a security, it creates problems for European users.

Risk 4: if Gram is actively promoted

SEC “touting rules” apply to security marketing. If Telegram starts promoting Gram as “an investment” (vs utility), that may shift its legal category.

Sources

SEC v. Telegram Group Inc., No. 19-cv-09439 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) — court records
SEC Settlement Order, June 26, 2020
Telegram Statements (May 2020, via @durov)
SEC Chair Paul Atkins, 2025 statements
Hester Peirce, “Token Safe Harbor Proposal”
Andreessen Horowitz, “State of Crypto Report 2025”

Further reading:

Why Toncoin Gram Needs No Swap: a Technical Deep Dive

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:13 +0000

One of the most common questions after the Toncoin → Gram rebrand announcement on June 1, 2026, is: why isn’t a swap required?

Unlike Matic → POL (swap required), CRO → new CRO (swap required), FTM → S (swap required), Toncoin turns into Gram automatically, with no token migration from one contract to another. This piece explains why that is, at the level of TON’s technical design.

i
In short

Toncoin/Gram is not a smart contract — it’s part of the TON protocol itself. There is no ‘Toncoin-token’ contract with user balances. Balances live in each account’s state as a field in a protocol-level structure. So a rename doesn’t affect state — only metadata changes in the UI layer of each platform.

Native coin vs Token: the key distinction

Every blockchain has two asset types:

Native coin (gas token)

BTC in Bitcoin, ETH in Ethereum, SOL in Solana, TON/Gram in TON
Stored as balance: uint64/uint128 field in account state
No contract address — it’s a protocol-level concept
Used to pay gas (fees)
To rename = a protocol hard-fork (if semantics change) or a metadata update only (if display changes)

Token (contract-based)

USDC on Ethereum (ERC-20 contract), USDT-TON on TON (jetton), Matic on Ethereum (was ERC-20)
Stored as mapping(address => balance) inside a smart contract
Has a contract address (for TON — jettonMaster address)
To rename = metadata update on the smart contract (if metadata mutable) or new contract + swap (if immutable)

Matic → POL required a swap because Matic was an ERC-20 contract with immutable metadata. A new POL contract had to be created and a swap collected.

Toncoin → Gram requires no swap because Toncoin is a native coin, not a contract. The rename happens only in the UI layer.

What’s a Toncoin/Gram balance, actually?

Looking at any TON account via the RPC API (e.g. runGetMethod or getAccountState), you get something like:

{
  "address": "EQAB...",
  "balance": "1234567890",       // ← this is nanoTON (now nanoGRAM)
  "lastTransactionId": { ... },
  "code": "...",                  // smart-contract code
  "data": "...",                  // smart-contract data
  "frozen": false
}

The balance field is uint128 in nano units. 10^9 nano = 1 TON (now 1 GRAM). No “TON” or “Gram” string anywhere. It’s just a number.

When your Tonkeeper shows “1.0 TON,” it:

Pulls balance from the API
Divides by 10^9 (decoding)
Appends the string “TON” (now “GRAM”) from its local metadata
Displays “1.0 TON” (now “1.0 GRAM”)

Same goes for Tonviewer, exchanges, aggregators — each with its own local metadata.

What happens during the rebrand

Technically — nothing at the protocol level. Every platform just changes its local-metadata constant from “TON” to “GRAM.”

It’s a distributed process:

Tonkeeper team updates the mobile app → users see “GRAM”
Bybit team updates the listing UI → traders see “GRAM/USDT” instead of “TON/USDT”
CoinMarketCap team updates the database → researchers see “GRAM” in charts
DefiLlama team updates the TON protocol name in their database

And so on. Each platform autonomously decides when to update. It’s not a coordinated event — it’s a distributed metadata refresh.

Is it hard, technically?

Technically — trivial, a string in config.

In Tonkeeper, for instance, there’s probably a constant like:

const NATIVE_COIN_SYMBOL = 'TON';  // ← becomes 'GRAM'

In a Bybit listing card:

symbol: TON  # ← becomes GRAM
display_name: Toncoin  # ← becomes Gram

The hard part isn’t engineering — it’s timing/coordination: getting all platforms to switch in sync needs comms effort. Durov gave a 3-week transition window — enough for major platforms.

Historical data

A subtle point: historical “Toncoin” data on CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, TradingView, etc. is the same asset as today’s “Gram.” Platforms usually:

Rename the primitive (asset entry) from “Toncoin” to “Gram”
Keep “Toncoin” as a search alias
Preserve all historical data (price chart, volume, market cap)

So your TradingView “TON/USDT” chart continues showing the full history — just renamed to “GRAM/USDT.”

Jettons like USDT-TON, NOT, DOGS, etc.

All these jettons are independent smart contracts on TON. Their metadata (name, symbol, icon) lives in the jetton-master contract via get_jetton_data().

Each issuer decides independently:

Tether (USDT-TON) — unlikely to rename; USDT is a stable brand
Notcoin (NOT) — unlikely
DOGS — unlikely
Tonstakers (tsTON) — may rename to tsGRAM
bemo (bemoTON) — may rename to bemoGRAM
Hipo (hTON) — may rename to hGRAM

Each is an independent decision, unrelated to the native rebrand.

Code/SDK implications for developers

If you use TON Connect or TON SDK

Nothing to change in code. The SDK works with:

Address (EQ.. / UQ.. format)
Amount in nanoTON / nanoGRAM (bigint)
Transaction format (boc, cell)

None of these contains the string “TON.” For example:

// Before and after the rebrand — identical code
const result = await tonClient.sendTransaction({
  to: 'EQAB...',
  amount: toNano('1.0'),  // 1 TON = 1 GRAM, same function
  payload: ...,
});

toNano('1.0') returns 1000000000n — that’s nanoTON/nanoGRAM, the same thing.

If you use string-based ticker matching

// Before rebrand:
if (token.symbol === 'TON') { ... }

// After rebrand your bot may break if the API now returns 'GRAM':
if (token.symbol === 'GRAM') { ... }

// Best practice — support both, or use a contract-address/native flag:
if (token.symbol === 'TON' || token.symbol === 'GRAM') { ... }
// or
if (token.isNative) { ... }  // protocol-level flag

This is the only place where code can break during the rebrand — if you hardcoded the symbol string. Audit your code.

What it would look like done Matic-style

Hypothetically: if Telegram had decided to create a new GRAM jetton instead of renaming the native, a swap would be required:

Deploy a GRAM smart contract as a jetton
Every Toncoin holder burns their TON and mints GRAM
Exchanges list GRAM as a jetton
Native TON remains in circulation, splitting liquidity

This would be much worse for users:

Gas costs on the swap
Some users would never swap and effectively lose tokens
Split liquidity (TON and GRAM on DEXes)
All DeFi positions would require migration

Durov and the team picked the cleanest path: no swap, just rename the metadata.

Technical FAQ for power users

Does the nano unit change?

No. It was nanoTON = 10^-9 TON, now nanoGRAM = 10^-9 GRAM. Same unit, renamed.

Does gas pricing change?

No. Gas is computed in nano units; prices in protocol config are unchanged.

Does the address format change?

No. EQ/UQ formats remain, raw format (0:abc…) remains.

Does the BOC format change?

No. Cells, slices, addresses — all the same.

Does the validator set change?

No. That’s a separate process (Telegram became the largest validator on May 4 as part of MTONGA step 3, before the rebrand).

Does the protocol version change?

No. The current network configuration version continues.

What about RPC methods like `runGetMethod`?

No change. The RPC API returns the same data structure.

What about TON Connect?

No change. The protocol works with addresses and transactions, not tickers.

What changes vs what doesn’t

Thing	Pre-rebrand	Post-rebrand
Native unit name	nanoTON	nanoGRAM (same unit)
Address format	EQ/UQ/raw	EQ/UQ/raw
Block structure	TON v2	TON v2
Gas pricing	in nanoTON	in nanoGRAM (same)
Smart contracts	unchanged	unchanged
Jetton addresses	unchanged	unchanged
Validator set	Telegram = largest	Telegram = largest
RPC API	unchanged	unchanged
Wallet UI display	”TON"	"GRAM”
Exchange ticker	TON/USDT	GRAM/USDT
CoinGecko entry	Toncoin	Gram

Bottom line

The Toncoin → Gram rebrand is technically trivial as far as the blockchain itself is concerned. No contract deployments, migrations, or swaps. It’s a metadata update in the UI layer, distributed across platforms with a 3-week transition window.

The hard part is coordination: getting every wallet, exchange, and aggregator to switch in sync. But that’s an off-chain task per team, not an on-chain operation.

For holders: do nothing, change nothing, swap nothing. Just watch the UI shift from “TON” to “GRAM” over the next 2–3 weeks.

Further reading:

How Other Chains Survived Rebrands: Lessons for Gram

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:11 +0000

The Toncoin → Gram rebrand isn’t the first or the largest rename in crypto. Over the past 5 years, at least five major cases are worth studying: Matic→POL, CRO restart, FTM→Sonic, MKR→Sky, Hive Engine swap. Each has its own causes, market reaction, and long-term effect.

This piece is a systematic comparison of these cases focused on what Gram can expect in the short term (1–2 weeks), medium term (3 months), and long term (12 months).

Comparison table

Case	Date	Anno +7d	3 months	12 months	Context
Matic → POL	Sep 2024	+12%	+5%	+50%	Bull market, POL 2.0 utility
CRO restart	Mar 2022	+18%	-5%	-20%	Bear market, mostly cosmetic
FTM → Sonic	Jan 2024	+25%	+35%	+120%	Bull, real tech upgrades
MKR → Sky	Aug 2024	-3%	-20%	-35%	Controversial in community
Hive Engine swap	Sep 2020	+5%	+10%	+180%	Bull, niche project
Gram (current)	Jun 2026	+10%	?	?	Neutral, MTONGA context

Case 1: Matic → POL (September 2024)

Context

Polygon moved from a monolithic blockchain to Polygon 2.0 — an L2 ecosystem with AggLayer. The Matic token became POL with expanded utility: multi-chain staking, native gas across all Polygon L2s, AggLayer governance token.

Market reaction

Day 0: +12% pump in 24 hours
Week 1: correction to +5%
Month 1: +18% (broader bull rally)
Month 3: +5%
Year 1: +50%

Lesson for Gram

Positive: a rebrand paired with expanded functionality (not just a rename) delivers durable growth in a bull market.

Applicability: Gram so far is purely a cosmetic rebrand. If MTONGA step 5 brings genuine new functionality (likely — Telegram product integration), the Matic case becomes directly relevant.

Case 2: Crypto.com Coin restart (March 2022)

Context

CRO moved from a centralized structure to CronosChain — its own L1 on Cosmos SDK. Old CRO tokens auto-converted to new without a swap.

Market reaction

Day 0: +18% pump
Week 1: correction to +8%
Month 3: -5% (bear started)
Year 1: -20%

Lesson for Gram

Negative: rebrand + new infrastructure without material real-usage growth = short-term pump, long-term decay.

Applicability: if Telegram can’t actually integrate Gram into its products (Stars, ads, Premium), the CRO case becomes a reasonable risk. Telegram’s 1 billion users are potential, not a guarantee of real usage.

Case 3: FTM → Sonic (January 2024)

Context

Fantom forked and launched Sonic — its own next-gen L1 with Solana-tier speed (10K TPS, sub-second finality). 1:1 FTM-to-S swap for holders.

Market reaction

Day 0: +25% pump
Week 1: correction to +18%
Month 3: +35% (bull rally intensified)
Year 1: +120%

Lesson for Gram

Most positive case: real technical upgrade + rebrand + bull market = best holder outcome.

Applicability: Gram already has Catchain 2.0 (10× speed, sub-second finality — nearly Sonic-level), no need for a swap (even better than Sonic), and Telegram-grade marketing. If the broader market turns bull in H2 2026, Gram can replicate Sonic’s trajectory.

Case 4: MKR → Sky (August 2024)

Context

MakerDAO rebranded brand and token to Sky as part of Rune Christensen’s “Endgame plan.” Existing MKR holders can swap (but it’s optional — most holders kept MKR).

Market reaction

Day 0: -3% (unusual — drop!)
Week 1: -8%
Month 3: -20%
Year 1: -35%

Lesson for Gram

Worst case: contentious rebrand with a split community = negative reaction.

Applicability: Gram won’t repeat this because (1) no swap is required — no community division, (2) Telegram is a far more popular brand than “Sky,” (3) Gram has the historical Telegram lineage; Sky has none.

Case 5: Hive Engine swap (September 2020)

Context

Niche project Hive (Steem fork) launched Hive Engine — a sidechain for tokens. Old assets reorganized under a new model.

Market reaction

Day 0: +5%
Week 1: +12%
Month 3: +10%
Year 1: +180% (2021 bull)

Lesson for Gram

Niche success: even a small rebrand can deliver a huge effect in a bull market with improved adoption.

Applicability: Gram isn’t niche, but the logic “rebrand + bull = multi-fold growth” holds.

From the 5-case analysis, four common success factors:

1. Real tech features in parallel

A name change without shipping new functionality almost always yields a short pump and prolonged decay. Sonic ✅, POL ✅, Hive ✅ — all delivered something new. CRO ❌, MKR ❌ — near-pure cosmetic.

Gram: ✅ present. Catchain 2.0 (step 1), 6× fee reduction (step 2), Telegram validator (step 3) — all shipped BEFORE the rebrand. Best-pattern execution.

2. Marketing via a big channel

Polygon, Crypto.com, Fantom — each had a marketing channel (Crypto Twitter, corporate partnerships, listings). Without it, information distribution is weak.

Gram: ✅ present. Telegram is the largest crypto-friendly messenger. Durov’s announcement reached 1 billion users in a day.

3. Stable or growing transaction volume post-announcement

If volume goes flat or down after the announcement, that’s a bad signal. If it grows, the narrative strengthens.

Gram: ✅ on June 1, volume tripled in the first 24 hours. In line with the best cases (Sonic +25%, POL +30% volume in early days).

4. Clear narrative tie between old and new names

Matic→POL: one project, an evolution. CRO restart: same brand, new infrastructure. FTM→Sonic: continuation of Fantom heritage.

Gram: ✅ a return to the original 2018 name. The strongest narrative tie — even better than “evolution” — it’s “full circle.”

What sets Gram apart from all 5 cases

Three unique characteristics of the Gram rebrand that none of the prior cases had:

1. Return to a historical name

Neither Matic→POL nor CRO restart nor FTM→Sonic returned to the original whitepaper name. Gram returns to its 2018 name. That creates a powerful storytelling effect absent from other cases.

2. Corporate-capital-backed return

Most rebrands are an evolution of a community project. Gram is the opposite: the corporation returns to a project it walked away from 6 years ago. Few crypto precedents.

3. Size of the distributional advantage

Polygon, Crypto.com, Fantom had millions of crypto-aware users. Telegram has 1 billion users, most of whom haven’t onboarded to blockchain yet. That’s a potential no other rebrand had.

Analogical forecast for Gram

Base case (weight 40%):

Day 0: +10% ✅ (already done)
Week 1: correction to +5%
Month 3: +5–15%
Year 1: +30–80%

Optimistic case (weight 30%, Sonic-like):

Day 0: +10%
Week 1: +20%
Month 3: +35%
Year 1: +100–150%

Pessimistic case (weight 20%, MKR-like):

Day 0: +10%
Week 1: correction to 0%
Month 3: -15%
Year 1: -30%

Flat decay (weight 10%, CRO-like):

Day 0: +10%
Week 1: correction to +3%
Month 3: -5%
Year 1: -10%

Not financial advice. Actual dynamics will depend on MTONGA steps 5–7, the broader crypto market, Telegram’s behavior, and regulatory events.

Lessons for holders

From the 5 cases:

Don’t trade the announcement itself — most of the pump is gone in the first hours
Watch the shipping of new features — if Telegram integrates Gram into Stars/ads/Premium within 30 days, the narrative holds
Factor in the broader market — a rebrand alone doesn’t create long-term alpha
Diversify — all 5 cases show ±35% volatility within 3 months. Don’t put in more than you can stomach in that range

Further reading:

Gram in Telegram Products: Stars, Ads, Premium — What Changes

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:09 +0000

After the Toncoin → Gram rebrand, the hottest question about the network’s future is: how does Telegram actually integrate Gram into its products? Durov hasn’t publicly disclosed, but the MTONGA context (4/7 steps done) and public 2024–2025 statements support reasoned hypotheses.

This piece is the systematic breakdown: what already works, what’s likely in MTONGA steps 5–7, what’s speculative. No hype, honest probability assessment.

!
Disclaimer

Below is an analysis of possible integration directions, not financial forecasts. Durov may announce something entirely different. Don’t trade on these hypotheses.

Map of Telegram products where Gram could land

Product	Current currency	Possible Gram integration	Probability
Telegram Stars	Stars (in-app)	Direct Stars ↔ Gram conversion	High (85%)
Telegram Premium	Fiat / Stars	Gram staking unlock, direct payment	High (70%)
Telegram Ads	Fiat / TON	Full switch to Gram payments	Medium (50%)
Mini Apps purchases	Stars / TON	Default Gram payments	High (80%)
Wallet by Telegram	USDT / TON	Auto-conversion fiat → Gram	Medium (40%)
Fragment (NFT)	TON	Continues in Gram	Status quo
Telegram Storage upgrade	Premium	Possible Gram tier	Low (20%)
Channel monetization (creator)	Stars	Gram payouts opt-in	Medium (50%)

What already works

Wallet by Telegram

Since 2023, Wallet in Telegram (@wallet) supports:

Custodial storage of TON (now GRAM)
P2P purchase via card / bank transfer (RU, EU, other regions)
USDT holding (on TON, not Tron)
Stars ↔ TON conversion both directions

After the rebrand, the UI just shifts from “TON” to “GRAM”; functionality unchanged.

Stars ↔ TON conversion (since 2024)

Stars is Telegram’s in-app currency. Purchased via App Store / Google Play / web for fiat. Since 2024, Stars convert to TON (now Gram) via Wallet — already working.

Conversion rate: roughly 1 Star ≈ $0.012, minimum 100 Stars. Post-rebrand the UI just shows “1 Star ≈ 0.002 GRAM.”

Fragment.com

Marketplace for Telegram NFT usernames and numbers. Paid in TON (now Gram). After the rebrand, no functional changes, only UI label.

Mini App payments

Mini Apps in Telegram can accept payment two ways:

Stars (via payments.getStarsInvoice API)
TON via TON Connect (smart-contract transaction)

After the rebrand, both keep working. Mini Apps receive TON (now GRAM) at their address.

What’s likely in MTONGA steps 5–7

Hypothesis A: Premium via Gram staking (probability 70%)

The cleanest, most powerful mechanic. Logic:

Stake N Gram (e.g., 50 GRAM ≈ $250) via TON Connect
Telegram Premium auto-enables while stake is active
Staking through a special validator pool controlled by Telegram (rewards may be shared)
Unstake → Premium turns off after 7 days

Why this is likely:

Stake creates sticky Gram demand (doesn’t get sold)
Apple/Google don’t take 30% from Premium (current state: 30% goes to App Store cut)
Encourages crypto adoption via everyday Telegram use

What could prevent it:

Regulatory risk (Premium staking could be classified as a security yield)
Technically hard to make UX clean for a billion users

Hypothesis B: Telegram Ads — move to Gram (probability 50%)

Telegram Ads currently accepts payment in:

Fiat via licensed brokers (for EU/UK advertisers)
TON (now Gram) for direct advertisers

Possible step: unify everything to Gram. All advertisers pay in Gram directly, or fiat with auto-conversion to Gram. Plus possible revenue burn of Gram (part of revenue used for buyback + burn).

Why this is likely:

Creates permanent Gram buy-pressure (Telegram’s ad market is estimated in the billions $/year)
Makes Gram functionally needed for business operations
Analogous to BNB in the Binance ecosystem

What could prevent it:

Complexity for small advertisers who don’t want a crypto experience
Regulatory pushback in the EU (MiCA + ad regulations)

Hypothesis C: Stars becomes a Gram-stable (probability 40%)

Speculative scenario: Stars becomes a wrapped/pegged derivative of Gram. E.g., 1 Star = 0.002 Gram at a fixed rate, backed by a Gram reserve.

Why this could work:

Stars becomes “stablecoin inside Telegram,” removing complexity for non-crypto users
A $-stable entry point into the Gram ecosystem
Telegram holds a Gram reserve, creating durable demand

What could prevent it:

Stars is currently designed as a pure in-app currency, not a stablecoin
Backing requires collateral management, hard for Telegram operationally
May be classified as e-money (requires licensing)

Hypothesis D: default Gram payments in Mini Apps (probability 80%)

Very likely: Telegram makes Gram the default currency for all Mini Apps. Today developers choose between Stars and TON. In the future — Gram becomes the first choice; Stars stays as backup for users without crypto.

Why this is likely:

TON Connect is already a unique selling point of Telegram Mini Apps
Mini App developers get direct payment without a 30% cut
A natural continuation of the current trajectory

What could prevent it:

Apple/Google may push back against “circumventing” their payment systems
This is already happening but pressure may grow

What will NOT happen (our predictions)

A few popular crypto-Twitter hypotheses we consider unlikely:

Replacing Stars entirely

Stars remains as the regulated, fiat-bridgeable, easy-to-buy in-app currency. Gram remains as crypto-native, on-chain, fully user-owned. They’re complementary, not competitors.

Burn-buyback from Telegram revenue

Telegram hasn’t signaled a planned token-burn mechanic from its revenue. It would be regulatorily difficult (could classify Gram as a security).

Airdrop to current Premium subscribers

Unlikely for two reasons: (1) technically hard for millions of users, (2) regulatory risk (may be classified as unregistered token distribution).

Telegram launches its own L2

Possible, but not as part of MTONGA. If Telegram launches an L2, it would be a separate announcement, not part of the current 7 steps.

Timeline: what to expect when

Based on MTONGA pace (1 step per month):

July 2026: likely step 5 — something Telegram-product-integration-related. Base hypothesis: Premium-staking or default Gram payments in Mini Apps.
August 2026: step 6. Possibly scaling (L2 or additional shards under Telegram load).
September–October 2026: step 7. Bitcoin bridge Teleport or AI-agent framework AgenticKit.

Detail in our MTONGA steps 5–7 forecast.

Influence on Gram price

If just one of the key integrations happens (Premium staking, default Stars conversion, Gram ad payments, Mini App default), it creates:

Permanent buy pressure (Premium subscribers, advertisers, developers)
Sticky stake (Premium stakers don’t trade)
Velocity growth (millions of Mini App transactions daily)

That can toggle Gram’s long-term outlook from “mid-cap chain crypto” to “utility token of a leading messenger app” — a qualitatively different category.

But only if Telegram actually executes. Steps 1–4 show execution capability. Steps 5–7 = increment evidence.

Action items for Gram holders

If you hold Gram betting on these integrations:

Don’t buy heavily on the announcement — most upside is in the current price (on step 5–7 expectations)
Track concrete metrics: active Mini App users, Telegram Ad spending in Gram, Premium-staking participation (if launched)
Diversify: even if all hypotheses hit, it’s a single chain bet — corporate dependence on Telegram is significant
Don’t collateralize Gram for Premium ahead of launch — no guarantee the mechanism is exactly as we model

Further reading:

Gram and Sanctions in 2026: OFAC, EU MiCA, What Changes

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:07 +0000

After the Toncoin → Gram rebrand and MTONGA step 3 (Telegram became the network’s largest validator), the sanctions profile of the network has objectively shifted. On one hand, Gram is legally the same asset Toncoin was (only the name changed). On the other, the corporate sponsor (Telegram) gives regulators a clear “point of pressure” that the community-run TON didn’t have.

This piece is a detailed analysis of what changes for compliance and what doesn’t. No alarmism, but an honest assessment of real risks.

!
Disclaimer

Analytical content, not individual legal advice. The sanctions landscape moves fast. For significant positions and EU/US operations, consult a specialized lawyer.

OFAC US: current status and risks

Where we are now

OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control, US Treasury) maintains the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list — sanctioned entities and addresses. As of June 1, 2026:

TON Foundation — NOT sanctioned
Telegram FZ-LLC (UAE entity) — NOT sanctioned
Gram / Toncoin as an asset — NOT sanctioned
Specific TON addresses — some on the SDN list (Lazarus Group addresses, drug-trade entities)
Pavel Durov personally — NOT sanctioned

What happened after Durov’s arrest

August 2024: Durov was arrested in France. The episode didn’t trigger an OFAC action against Telegram but increased scrutiny:

US Treasury issued an advisory in October 2024 about risks of using messengers without KYC for crypto transactions
No specific sanctions against Telegram or TON

Could OFAC sanction Gram?

Technically — three action tiers:

Specific addresses (current practice) — add to SDN. Already happens for bad actors on any blockchain.
Specific services (precedent: Tornado Cash, August 2022) — sanction a smart contract or service. Contested even in US law (federal court partially overturned Tornado Cash sanctions).
Entire network or native asset — no precedent. Legally awkward — it’s not a “person” but a protocol.

For Gram, tier 3 is highly unlikely. Even in a worst-case US/Telegram fallout, the network itself keeps running, and OFAC enforcement stops at the address level.

What it means for a retail holder

If you’re a US resident holding Gram:

Holding Gram per se is not prohibited by OFAC
Prohibited: transacting with SDN-listed addresses
Prohibited: using Gram to pay sanctioned entities
Tonkeeper, MyTonWallet — self-custody, not CASP, not applicable to MiCA/CASP rules

EU MiCA: what changes after the rebrand

MiCA structure

EU Regulation 2023/1114 (Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulates crypto in the EU since full force in 2024. Three asset categories:

E-money tokens — pegged to a single fiat (e.g. USDC, USDT)
Asset-referenced tokens — pegged to a basket (DAI, for example)
Other crypto-assets — everything else (BTC, ETH, TON, Gram)

Gram falls under Other crypto-assets, same as Toncoin before. No classification change after the rebrand.

What MiCA requires of CASPs

Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASP) — exchanges, custodial wallets, brokers, advisors — must:

Obtain a CASP license in one of the EU jurisdictions
Apply KYC/AML to clients
Comply with Travel Rule for ≥$1000 transfers
Protect client funds via segregation
Report to the regulator regularly

Wallet by Telegram is already registered as a CASP in the EU (since March 2025). After the rebrand — no legal-status change.

Self-custody wallets (Tonkeeper, MyTonWallet) — NOT CASPs, not under MiCA.

EU resident holding Gram — what changes

Nothing changes drastically:

Holding Gram in self-custody — allowed
Using DEXes (STON.fi, DeDust) — allowed (DEXes aren’t CASPs by default)
Moving Gram via CEX (Bybit, OKX, MEXC) — allowed, but subject to those exchanges’ MiCA compliance (KYC + Travel Rule)
Receiving Gram as gift / mining reward — allowed (but possibly a taxable event)

Travel Rule (FATF): for transfers ≥$1000

FATF Recommendation 16 (Travel Rule) requires VASPs (Virtual Asset Service Providers) to share identifying info on transfers ≥$1000 (€1000 in the EU). The EU implemented this via Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR), in force since December 2024.

For Gram holders:

Self-custody transfers: not in scope
CEX → CEX: the exchange will pass your-name + recipient-name through a Travel Rule rail (Sumsub Travel Rule, Notabene, etc.)
CEX → self-custody: the exchange will ask “whose wallet is this?” on large withdrawals

After the rebrand — no changes to TFR application.

Russian residents: specifics

Russia is not under direct US crypto sanctions (unlike Iran/Syria/North Korea). But secondary effects exist:

What a Russian resident can do

Hold Gram in self-custody — allowed
Trade on crypto exchanges (Bybit, OKX, MEXC) — allowed, but KYC limited for Russian passports
P2P fiat-conversion — allowed via crypto bots (Crypto Bot, xRocket)
Declare in 3-NDFL — see our Russian tax guide

What a Russian resident CANNOT do (legally)

Use Gram to pay for goods/services inside Russia (2025 “Digital Currency Law”: prohibits use as means of payment)
Receive salary directly in Gram (must be structured via individual entrepreneur)
Issue your own jetton without a CB license

Geopolitical risk

With Telegram’s validator presence, TON may sit in a more sensitive geopolitical spot:

US/EU may start viewing Telegram as a “Russian messenger” (despite UAE incorporation)
Secondary sanctions possible if Telegram gets entangled in sanctions situations
Not a certainty, but a risk factor for long-term planning

What Telegram does for compliance

After Durov’s arrest, Telegram materially strengthened compliance:

Wallet by Telegram CASP registration in the EU (March 2025)
Expanded cooperation with EU law enforcement (Europol)
Improved moderation of crypto scams in channels
OFAC screening for large transactions through Wallet

At the Gram network level (smart-contract level) — no filtering. Self-custody users don’t depend on Telegram compliance.

What Telegram’s validator can (and cannot) do

A primary concern after MTONGA step 3 is that the Telegram validator can censor transactions. The realistic picture:

What Telegram’s validator cannot do

Freeze your balance
Change Gram’s supply
Reverse a transaction after the fact

What it could do (theoretically)

Not include specific transactions in its own block (other validators still include them — a 1–2 sec delay)
Coordinate with other large validators (requires social capital, unlikely)
Block Telegram app-level access (banned wallets may lose Wallet access)

Action items for Gram holders under sanctions context

Checklist by jurisdiction:

If you’re in the US

Don’t transact with SDN-listed addresses (check via Tonviewer before large transfers)
Use US-regulated CEXes (Coinbase, Kraken) for fiat cash-out on large sizes
Declare Gram on IRS Form 8949 on sales
Self-custody via Tonkeeper / MyTonWallet — not a CASP, not applicable

If you’re in the EU

Use CASP-licensed exchanges (most majors already licensed)
Travel Rule > €1000: expect KYC prompts
File with your local tax office (Germany, France, Italy — different rules)
MiCA doesn’t require action from self-custody users

If you’re in Russia

Self-custody — unrestricted
Tax: 13%/15% on profit (see our tax guide)
DO NOT use Gram as a means of payment inside Russia
P2P via crypto bots — allowed

If you’re in Eastern Europe / Belarus / CIS

Most countries — permissive regime (Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan)
Tax varies by country (typically 0–15%)
Check local regulations separately

Long-term outlook

12 months out (June 2027)

Base case: no major sanctions against Gram. Standard CEX compliance continues; self-custody is free.

Pessimistic case: secondary OFAC action in case of US-Telegram fallout. Impact: some US-licensed exchanges delist Gram. But this doesn’t affect globally.

Optimistic case: clarity regulation in the US via FIT 21 / CLARITY Act explicitly designates Gram a commodity (not security). That lowers regulatory risk and brings institutional capital.

Sources

OFAC SDN List, June 2026
EU Regulation 2023/1114 (MiCA)
EU Regulation 2023/1113 (TFR / Travel Rule)
FATF Recommendation 16 (Travel Rule)
US Treasury advisories (2024–2026)
Tether Operations OFAC compliance reports

Further reading:

DeFi on TON After the Rebrand: STON.fi, DeDust, Storm Trade

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:05 +0000

The Toncoin → Gram rebrand touches every DEX, lending protocol, and derivatives venue on TON. Good news for users: technically nothing breaks. Bad news for developers: you need to audit bots, indexers, and integrations that may hardcode the TON string.

This piece is the systematic breakdown of what changes (and what doesn’t) for each major DeFi protocol in the TON ecosystem.

TVL map and the biggest protocols

Protocol	Type	TVL pre-rebrand	TVL post-announcement
STON.fi	DEX (AMM)	$145M	$160M (+10% from price)
DeDust	DEX (AMM)	$90M	$99M
swap.coffee	DEX aggregator	(passthrough)	(passthrough)
TONCO	DEX (CLMM)	$35M	$38M
Storm Trade	Perpetuals	$55M	$61M
EVAA	Lending	$45M	$50M
DAOlama	NFT-lending	$20M	$22M
Tonstakers	Liquid staking	$250M	$275M
bemo	Liquid staking	$80M	$88M
Hipo	Liquid staking	$35M	$38M

Total TON DeFi TVL: ~$760M → ~$835M (~10% rise from rebrand price impact).

STON.fi: what changes

What does NOT change

All pools — keep functioning. Pool jettonMaster addresses remain the same.
LP tokens — unchanged. If you held a TON/USDT LP token, in 3 weeks it’s a GRAM/USDT LP token (same token).
Liquidity — stays in the pools; nothing to pull.
Referral programs — referral_address keeps working (we use UQBXcHsMJ1TpBtMvuLKFDrGkmmsPdwFm80oIvBWbgVqRqBb6 via cloak).
V2 fee structure — unchanged (0.3% standard pools, custom for V2 pools).

What changes

UI labels — every “TON” mention in pool cards and the swap UI moves to “GRAM”. Transition over 1–2 weeks.
pTON jetton (wrapped native) — display name “pTON” may switch to “pGRAM”, but the pTON jettonMaster address does not change. Critical for indexers and bots.
Search and filter — you’ll search for pools by “GRAM” instead of “TON” after the UI migration.

User action

Just keep trading. No migrations.
For large swaps, wait 2–3 days after exchange UI swaps to avoid confusion with jetton Gram (see our confusion-buster).

DeDust: what changes

DeDust is the second-largest DEX by TVL on TON. Architecturally similar to STON.fi (AMM) with its own smart contract framework.

What does NOT change

Pools and LP tokens — same as STON.fi
Trading fees — unchanged
Smart contract addresses — all pools and factories on the same addresses

What changes

UI — GRAM ticker transition over 1–2 weeks
Native wrapping — DeDust uses its own native-TON wrapper, which will also be renamed

swap.coffee: aggregator effect

swap.coffee is a DEX aggregator (routes a swap via STON.fi/DeDust/TONCO for best execution). The rebrand doesn’t affect functionality — the aggregator works at the smart-contract level, not the ticker level.

The only visible change: UI shows “GRAM” instead of “TON”.

Storm Trade: perpetuals impact

Storm Trade is the largest perpetuals venue on TON. Post-rebrand:

What does NOT change

Open positions — keep running; PnL is calculated correctly
Cross-margin — TON collateral remains collateral (now GRAM)
Leverage — unchanged
Funding rate — formula unchanged
Liquidation threshold — same values

What changes

Pair display — “TON-USD” → “GRAM-USD”. A pure label change.
Base margin coin — remains the same (native GRAM, ex-TON)

Trader action

No action. Positions stay.
If your order uses hardcoded “TONUSD” in an API — update to “GRAMUSD” within 2–3 weeks.

Lending: EVAA and DAOlama

EVAA — money-market lending

EVAA is a compound-style lending protocol. Post-rebrand:

TON deposits — remain (now GRAM)
TON debts — remain (now GRAM debts)
Interest rate — unchanged
Collateral ratio — unchanged
Liquidation threshold — unchanged

Critically: liquidation bots need to update tickers in monitoring scripts.

DAOlama — NFT-collateralized lending

DAOlama issues TON loans against NFT collateral. Post-rebrand:

Loans denominated in GRAM instead of TON (same asset)
LTV parameters unchanged
Liquidation logic unchanged

Liquid staking: tsTON, bemoTON, hTON

The largest TON DeFi TVL segment. Post-rebrand:

tsTON (Tonstakers)

tsTON — may be renamed to tsGRAM (or kept as tsTON for backward compatibility). Tonstakers hasn’t announced yet.
Conversion rate tsTON ↔ TON remains (now tsTON ↔ GRAM)
APR — unchanged (~3.5%)

bemoTON (bemo)

Bemo — community vote on renaming. May keep bemoTON to minimize disruption.
Reward emission — unchanged

hTON (Hipo)

Hipo — the youngest, most likely to switch to hGRAM
TVL keeps growing (Hipo showed the fastest growth in April–May 2026)

Critical: derivative tokens do NOT change

tsTON, bemoTON, hTON, stTON are jettons on top of TON network, not the native coin. Their jettonMaster addresses don’t change. So technically your tsTON stays tsTON, even if the UI shows tsGRAM.

What changes for developers

If your code uses ticker strings

// Pre-rebrand
if (token.ticker === 'TON') { ... }

// Within 2–3 weeks after rebrand
if (token.ticker === 'TON' || token.ticker === 'GRAM') { ... }

This is the hardcoding pattern to update. Best practice — use contract address or null (for native), not strings.

If your code uses jettonMaster addresses

No changes. JettonMaster addresses of pools, derivative tokens, all jettons — unchanged.

If you do oracle integration

Pyth, RedStone, and other oracles may rename the feed from “TON/USD” → “GRAM/USD”. Verify subscribe names during the transition window.

If you embed charts (Dexscreener, GeckoTerminal)

Embed URLs may change slightly. Verify after 2–3 weeks.

What protocols are saying (June 1, 2026)

STON.fi

“We’re updating UI labels over the next 7–10 days. All pools, contracts, LP tokens stay exactly as is. No action needed from LPs or traders.”

DeDust

“Rebrand has zero impact on smart contracts or liquidity. UI update rolling out this week.”

Storm Trade

“Open positions safe. Display ticker updating to GRAM-USD over the next 14 days.”

EVAA

“Lending protocol works as designed. Display naming aligned with Tonkeeper / MyTonWallet schedule.”

Risks for DeFi users

Despite the technically clean rebrand, several risks during the transition:

1. Confusion attacks

Same as native vs jetton Gram (see our confusion-buster), DeFi may see new scam pools with names like “GRAM/USDT (new)” actually using the jetton Gram instead of native. Always verify the jettonMaster address of the pair.

2. Bot/aggregator confusion

In the first days, aggregators may surface invalid routes due to ticker-mapping desync. Don’t do large swaps in the first 48–72 hours — wait for things to settle.

3. Hardcoded scripts

If your arbitrage bot or yield-farming script hardcodes the ‘TON’ string — it may break in 2–3 weeks when DEXes finalize the GRAM transition. Audit and update before then.

4. Oracle staleness

In the first 24–48 hours after the announcement, some oracles may show stale prices due to the rename process. Lending positions with thin collateral ratio have elevated false-liquidation risk. If you’re leveraged near liquidation, top up or close ahead.

Action checklist by user group

LPs on STON.fi/DeDust/TONCO

No action needed
Within 2–3 weeks check the UI — should show GRAM instead of TON
Referral programs keep working

Traders on Storm Trade

Open positions safe
Update API tickers within 2–3 weeks if using hardcodes

Lenders in EVAA / DAOlama

Deposits and debts persist
If your position is near liquidation, top up collateral in the first 48 hours

Stakers in Tonstakers / bemo / Hipo

No action
tsTON/bemoTON/hTON keep the same contracts
APR unchanged

Developers and DeFi infrastructure

Audit scripts for hardcoded ‘TON’ strings
Update ticker mapping
Use jettonMaster addresses instead of strings for long-term robustness
Update Pyth/RedStone feed names if needed

Long-term effect on DeFi TVL

A rebrand by itself doesn’t move TVL long-term. But possible MTONGA step 5 (Gram integration into Telegram products) can. If Telegram actually uses Gram for ads, Stars, Premium — that brings millions of new TON wallets into the ecosystem. DeFi TVL could double or triple in 12 months if integration is real.

See our MTONGA step 5–7 forecast for the reasoning.

Further reading:

AgenticKit and Teleport: Detailed Look at MTONGA Steps 5–7

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:04 +0000

Of the 7 MTONGA steps from Pavel Durov, the first 4 are shipped (Catchain 2.0, fee cuts, Telegram validator, Gram rebrand). The remaining 3 are officially undisclosed, but the public TON Foundation 2026 roadmap names two concrete projects that probably land in steps 5–7: AgenticKit and Teleport.

This piece is a technical deep dive into both, based on public TON Foundation documents, Telegram patents, and dev-team interviews.

AgenticKit: a framework for AI agents on TON

What AgenticKit is

AgenticKit is an SDK + framework for building autonomous AI agents with their own TON wallets. Each agent:

Has a unique TON address and private key
Decides based on on-chain and off-chain data
Executes Gram transactions (send, swap, stake)
Interacts with other agents (agent-to-agent payments)
Plugs into Telegram Mini Apps for the UI layer

Tech stack

From public commits and docs:

Core: TypeScript/Python SDK
Wallet layer: TON Connect 2.0 for wallet binding
Execution: agent loop with access to an LLM API (OpenAI/Anthropic/local)
Memory: long-term + episodic memory (RAG-based)
Tools: predefined adapters for STON.fi, DeDust, EVAA, Tonkeeper, Telegram-API

Potential use cases

AI trading agents — automated DEX algotrading on TON
AI content moderation — channel moderation via AI with Gram payments for work
AI customer service — autonomous agents accepting Gram payments
AI NFT artists — generate NFTs, sell on Fragment, distribute profit in Gram
AI financial advisors — personal AI finance helpers
AI game NPCs — TON-game NPCs with their own economy

Competition

Eliza-OS (Solana/Ethereum/Base) — most mature, $1B+ market cap
Virtuals Protocol (Base) — $400M market cap at 2024 peak
Olas Network (Gnosis/multi-chain) — $200M market cap
AgenticKit for TON — under development; potential advantage: 1B Telegram-user distribution

What AgenticKit gives Gram

If AgenticKit takes off:

Permanent micro-transactions between agents in Gram (Catchain 2.0 sub-second finality makes it feasible)
Demand for Gram from agent developers (Gram tokens to pay for operations)
Mainstream crypto onboarding via Telegram Mini Apps with AI

Risks

AI-agent space is highly speculative with no proven product-market fit as of 2026
Eliza-OS already captured significant market share; TON may lose first-mover advantage
Technical complexity (LLM cost, key management for agents, security)
Regulatory risk (AI-agent-managed money is a novel category for regulators)

Teleport: trust-less Bitcoin bridge

Why Teleport matters

Bitcoin is the largest crypto by market cap (~$1.5T), but BTC holders don’t have an easy way to use BTC in other L1s’ DeFi. Existing solutions:

WBTC — centralized custodian (BitGo), $5B+ TVL
tBTC — multi-party custodian, risks at small validator sets
renBTC — shut down in 2022 after the Alameda collapse
Native BTC bridges — on specific L1s (Stacks, Liquid Network)

All existing solutions require trust in someone: custodian, federation, multi-sig. Teleport promises a trust-less approach.

How a trust-less BTC bridge works (in theory)

Building blocks:

BTC light client in TON validators — each TON validator verifies BTC block headers (via partial Merkle proofs)
ZK proofs — proof that a BTC transaction occurred, without keeping full BTC state in TON
MPC (multi-party computation) for signing BTC transactions — distributed control of BTC funds with no single point of failure
Threshold signatures — TON validators collectively sign a BTC withdrawal (2/3+ votes required)

BTC → TON flow

User sends BTC to a multi-party-controlled address (controlled by TON validators via MPC)
A ZK proof of the BTC transaction is submitted to TON
After confirmation, a bridged-BTC jetton mints on TON (e.g., bBTC)
User uses bBTC in DeFi (lending, swapping, perps)

TON → BTC flow

User burns the bBTC jetton on TON
TON validators collectively sign a BTC transaction (via MPC)
BTC is sent to the user’s Bitcoin address
Confirmation in the Bitcoin blockchain

What Teleport gives the TON ecosystem

Liquidity influx: the $2T BTC ecosystem can push hundreds of millions in BTC deposits into TON DeFi
New asset classes: BTC perps on Storm Trade, BTC lending on EVAA, BTC LP pools on STON.fi
Brand positioning: TON becomes one of the few ‘real’ BTC bridges, alongside Stacks, RSK
Regulatory edge: trust-less = less regulatory risk (no custodian to sue)

Technical risks

MPC complexity: coordinating 300+ TON validators on BTC signing is challenging
BTC fee economics: Teleport ops on the BTC side may be expensive during high-fee periods
Latency: BTC confirmations need ~30–60 minutes for finality
Smart-contract risk: bridge bugs historically = the biggest hacks in crypto (Ronin $625M, Wormhole $325M, Nomad $190M)

Competition

tBTC v2 (Threshold) — diminished, ~$200M TVL
Babylon Chain — BTC restaking for the security of other chains
Bitcoin Layer 2s: Stacks, RSK, Liquid Network
Spiderchain — claims trust-less BTC finality

If Teleport is actually trust-less and works, it can lead, because TON has Telegram distribution.

Possible timeline (our estimate)

Base case: both products folded into MTONGA, with shifted timing:

MTONGA step	Possible product	Date	Confidence
5	Premium staking / Telegram integration	July 2026	70%
6	AgenticKit launch	Aug–Sep 2026	50%
7	Teleport mainnet	Oct–Nov 2026	40%

Alternatively, MTONGA may include only product steps (Premium, Stars conversion, ad payments), and AgenticKit/Teleport become separate TON Foundation projects without formal MTONGA tag.

What it means for Gram holders

If AgenticKit takes off

Demand for Gram from agent developers (to pay for operations)
Transaction velocity rises
Possible announcement pump of 30–50%

If Teleport ships

BTC capital starts flowing into TON DeFi
TON TVL could grow 2–3× within 6 months after launch
TON brand shifts from “messenger blockchain” to “settlement layer for BTC”
Very bullish — but requires successful execution and avoiding bridge exploits

What could go wrong

AgenticKit may not gain traction (Eliza-OS already captured the market)
Teleport may slip or face security bugs (history of bridge hacks)
MTONGA may shift focus to other priorities (Telegram product integration over DeFi innovation)

Sources

TON Foundation 2026 roadmap (ton.org/roadmap)
TON Foundation blog posts (April–May 2026)
Telegram patents filed at USPTO 2025–2026
TON Connect 2.0 documentation
Pavel Durov public statements 2024–2026

Further reading:

TON Storage and TON Proxy in 2026: TON's Decentralized Web

ton-adoption — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:39:02 +0000

TON Storage and TON Proxy are two building blocks of the decentralized web that are rarely mentioned because only ~1% of TON users touch them. But they close an important gap: they let you fully decentralize a website — from hosting to access — without depending on Cloudflare, AWS, or DNS providers.

This piece covers what they are, how they work, what they cost, and where they show up in 2026.

2026 context: after Toncoin’s rebrand to Gram (June 1, 2026), TON Storage payments are denominated in Gram. See our main rebrand explainer.

What TON Storage is, technically

TON Storage is a distributed file storage protocol on top of the TON network. Architecture:

Bag (the file container)

A file (or directory) is split into 128 KB chunks and packed into a bag — a torrent-like structure:

Each bag has a unique bag-ID (256-bit SHA-256 of the Merkle root)
The bag holds a manifest with metadata (filename, size, chunk hashes)
Chunks are distributed across storage providers via a DHT

Storage providers

Any TON node can become a storage provider:

Deposits Gram as collateral in a dedicated smart contract
Stores chunks locally
Receives periodic Gram payouts from the file owner for uptime + retrieval

Providers compete on price and uptime — the market is saturated, prices have fallen from $0.50 per GB/month in 2022 to $0.05–0.10 in 2026.

Addressing and retrieval

Client knows the bag-ID of the file
Looks up storage providers holding the chunks via DHT
Downloads chunks in parallel, verifies SHA-256, reassembles the original file
If a provider is unavailable, switches to another (replication solves centralization)

What TON Proxy is

TON Proxy is an anonymous access layer for TON Sites — the Tor-equivalent. Architecturally:

TON DNS resolves .ton to an ADNL address (Abstract Datagram Network Layer)
TON Proxy node — any TON node that tunnels TCP/HTTP traffic over ADNL
Client (Tonkeeper, MyTonWallet, Tonutils Proxy) issues HTTP to .ton, tunneled via Proxy → ADNL → TON Site

Pros:

Anonymity — the client doesn’t reveal its IP to the destination (only the Proxy node sees it)
Censorship resistance — .ton domains aren’t controlled by ICANN, can’t be revoked
Web3-native — integrated with TON wallets for micro-payments

Cons:

Latency — each ADNL hop adds 50–200ms
Browser support — requires either a TON wallet or the Tonutils Proxy extension
Throughput — not suitable for video / heavy graphics (storage providers aren’t streaming-optimized)

The TON decentralized web stack

Layer	What	TON option
Domain	Names	TON DNS (`.ton`)
DNS	Resolution	TON DNS resolver
Hosting	Files	TON Storage
Network	Routing	ADNL
Privacy	Anonymity	TON Proxy
Payment	Micro-payments	Gram (ex-Toncoin)

A self-contained stack — theoretically you can build a full site without any Web2 calls (DNS, hosting, CDN).

Pricing and Gram tokenomics

TON Storage pricing 2026

Tier	Cost / GB / month	Use case
Cold (1 copy)	~$0.02–0.04	Backups, archives
Standard (3 copies)	$0.05–0.10	Static sites
High-availability (6+ copies)	$0.20–0.40	Production-critical data
Pinned (gateway pin)	$0.10–0.20	NFT metadata

For comparison:

AWS S3 Standard: $0.023 per GB/month + bandwidth ($0.09/GB out)
IPFS pinning (Pinata): free up to 1 GB, then $20/month per 100 GB
Arweave: one-time ~$5–10 per GB for 200+ years

TON Storage wins on cost for active access (bandwidth included) but not for cold archive.

Payments in Gram

A storage provider publishes a tariff in Gram per GB per month
The owner creates a storage contract = tariff × duration
The contract holds Gram in escrow, pays the provider periodically
If a provider fails proof-of-storage submission, the owner can claim a refund

Who uses TON Storage in 2026

Confirmed use cases

TON Foundation docs — part of ton.org documentation is hosted on TON Storage (with a Cloudflare fallback)
Fragment.com — NFT-username and TON-number metadata
Notcoin legacy assets — static assets for the app (after the wind-down of active development)
Some Mini Apps — experimental user-generated content

Where it’s NOT used (yet)

Mainstream Mini Apps (Hamster Kombat, DOGS) — traditional AWS/Cloudflare
DEXes (STON.fi, DeDust) — front-end on Vercel/Cloudflare Pages
TON Connect dApps — usually Web2 hosting
User-facing products — TON Storage is still too rough for mass UX

How to use TON Storage yourself

Hosting a static site (5 steps)

# 1. Build the static site
npm run build
# → dist/ with HTML/CSS/JS

# 2. Create a bag via tonutils-storage CLI
tonutils-storage create dist/ --description "My TON site"
# → bag-ID: ABCD1234...

# 3. Upload the bag to TON Storage
tonutils-storage upload ABCD1234 \
  --providers  \
  --tariff 

# 4. Register a .ton domain via Fragment
# fragment.com → buy .ton

# 5. Bind bag-ID to the domain via TON DNS
ton-dns set mysite.ton --storage ABCD1234

After that, the site opens from:

Tonkeeper / MyTonWallet (in-app browsers)
Tonutils Proxy extension in regular Chrome
The ton.site/mysite.ton gateway (privacy is reduced)

TON Proxy: viewing without hosting

If you just want to view TON Sites:

Tonkeeper — open the in-app browser, enter .ton
MyTonWallet — same
Tonutils Proxy Chrome extension — install, type .ton as a regular URL
Mobile TON Proxy app — a dedicated app from the TON Foundation

Typical latency: 200–400ms on load (vs 100–150ms for a Cloudflare site).

Problems and limitations

1. Speed

TON Proxy is slower than a CDN. Fine for static; not OK for video. Not suitable for real-time (gaming, video calls).

2. Adoption

TON Sites count is on the order of under 5000 in 2026. People actively opening .ton — tens of thousands. Still niche, not mainstream.

3. Search-engine indexing

TON Sites aren’t indexed by Google/Yandex directly (no crawler over ADNL). The workaround — publish the site both on TON Sites and a regular domain (hybrid). Most projects opt for this hybrid.

4. Mobile UX

Opening a .ton site on iPhone without Tonkeeper is impossible. On Android, Tonutils Proxy app works, but some features need root.

5. Provider trust

Despite cryptographic proofs, in practice you trust that storage providers won’t disappear. Active providers: 200–300 across the network, insufficient for serious enterprise.

Future of TON Storage under MTONGA

Within Durov’s MTONGA program (see the full breakdown), TON Storage may get a boost:

If step 5 is Telegram-product integration, native hosting of Telegram sticker packs / NFT metadata via TON Storage becomes plausible
Step 6 (scaling) may improve throughput (Catchain 2.0 sub-second finality already accelerates proof-of-storage cycles)
Step 7 — if it includes the Bitcoin bridge Teleport, deeper storage integration with cross-chain assets is possible

Bottom line

TON Storage and TON Proxy are functionally working decentralized layers with a real Gram economy. But adoption is still low — these are technologies for those who specifically need decentralization (NFT metadata, censorship-resistant content, anonymity-focused projects).

For most Web3 builders, a hybrid (Web2 hosting + TON Storage backup) is rational. The full decentralized stack is for enthusiasts and politically/regulatory-sensitive scenarios.

For depth, see: