Telegram’s Toncoin Sell-Off: 75% Drop? 🚀

by

Behold, the tale of Toncoin (TON), which hath plummeted more than 75% from its 2024 zenith and over 65% from its 2025 apex. The investors, with their hearts heavy with suspicion, have cast their blame upon the mighty Telegram, whose actions have sent tremors through the crypto market. 🤯

Lo, the analysts doth waver, like leaves in a tempest, debating whether this act hath sapped the life from Toncoin. Yet, verily, the growth of TON hath become entwined with the whispers of Telegram, as a serpent coiled around a tree. 🐍

Critics Blame Telegram for Toncoin’s Weak Price Performance

A recent missive from the Financial Times doth declare that Telegram hath sold over $450 million worth of Toncoin in 2025. This revelation hath stirred the pot of the crypto community, like a pot of boiling stew. 🥣

Concerns arose, as if from a dark cloud, about the motive behind this sale. The critics, with their sharp tongues, assert that the primary aim was to fund Telegram’s corporate endeavors, not to bolster the TON ecosystem. A most curious priority, indeed. 🧠

Some investors, with their brows furrowed, claim this selling hath contributed to TON’s stagnant price, as a stone hinders a river’s flow. 🌊

“Holy schmolly, no wonder TON is down 66%,” investor 0xGeeGee said, with a sigh that echoed through the halls of the crypto world. 🤯

Investor Mike Dudas, with a penchant for analogy, likened the situation to Pump.fun, which spent $225 million buying back its own token, thus highlighting the difference in strategy. 🔄

The FT report also notes that around $500 million worth of Telegram’s Russian bonds have been frozen under Western sanctions. This detail hath fueled doubts about Telegram’s economic independence, as a ship adrift in a storm. ⛵

Negative news surrounding Telegram could have a lasting impact on Toncoin’s price, as a shadow looms over a sunlit field. Previously, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov described TON as the economic backbone of the Telegram platform, a claim now tested by the winds of fate. 🌬️

What Do Telegram’s Defenders Say?

In response to these concerns, Manuel Stotz, the Executive Chairman of TON Strategy Co, doth push back with a quill of defiance. He emphasizes that Telegram remaineth committed to the TON blockchain, a promise as steadfast as the stars. 🌟

He clarifies that all TON sold is subject to a four-year vesting period, a measure as cautious as a mouse in a room full of cats. The largest buyer, he claims, is TON Strategy Co itself, a permanent capital vehicle designed to accumulate, hold, and stake TON rather than sell it on the market. 🧾

To the extent this post (by @mdudas, who’s generally quite brilliant) might call into question Telegram’s commitment to @ton_blockchain it only makes sense to politely set the record straight:

1) All $TON sold by Telegram has four-year vesting.

2) The by far largest buyer of…

– Manuel Stotz (@ManuelStotz) January 6, 2026

Meanwhile, CoinGecko reported that TON Strategy is currently sitting on losses, a bitter pill for any investor. The firm holds more than 4% of TON’s total supply, now valued at over $406 million, while it spent $713 million to accumulate the position. 💸

Supporting the defense, contributor DamX argues that Telegram’s sales do not represent an exit but an effort to balance the ecosystem. He claims that excessive TON accumulation by Telegram would hinder decentralization, a notion as clear as a bell. 🧑‍⚖️

“Telegram sells TON because it has to, not because it wants out. Ads, revenue sharing, minting and upgrading usernames, gifts, Premium, Stars, and other in-app payments all settle through TON in one way or another. As Telegram scales, it naturally accumulates TON from these flows,” DamX said, with the wisdom of a sage. 🧙‍♂️

Regarding the alleged financial exposure to Russia, Pavel Durov denied the claim, stating that the information was inaccurate. “Despite some FUD, Telegram has no dependance on Russian capital. Our recent $1.7B bond offering included exactly zero Russian investors,” he declared, with the pride of a king. 🏰

Old bonds issued in 2021 have largely been repaid and pose no issue.

In any case, bondholders ≠ shareholders – and I am the sole shareholder.

– Pavel Durov (@durov) January 6, 2026

Ultimately, the credibility of these defenses may be tested by whether TON’s price recovers in 2026 and whether investor confidence returns to the altcoin. A tale as old as time, yet ever new. 🔄

Read More

2026-01-07 17:52