Русский 
中文 
Eesti 
Español 
Deutsch 
Български 
Türkçe 
TON increased by 19.5% amid controversial rebranding to Gram and community split
TON increased by 19.5% amid controversial rebranding to Gram and community split
All the news🔄 Gram's return: TON rose by 19.5% amid controversial rebranding and community split
Rate Toncoin (TON) showed an explosive reaction to the announcement of the founder of Telegram Pavel Durov about renaming the native cryptocurrency of the blockchain to Gram the historical name of the project, which became a symbol of confrontation with the SEC in 2018-2020. In 24 hours, the asset jumped from $$1.89 to $2.26 (+19.5%%), however, by the time of publication, it had corrected to $2, which indicates the speculative nature of the movement.
Rebranding became the fourth step out of seven as part of the initiative MTONGA (Make TON Great Again), announced by Durov after the launch of the Catchain 2.0 update. According to the founder of Telegram, the transition to the name Gram will take about three weeks, while the network itself will retain the name The Open Network (TON).
We are returning to the roots and starting a new chapter. This change will pave the way for what will come next, Durov said.
⚖️ Community split: whales vs retail
Simultaneously with the announcement, a conflict erupted in the community around the voting procedure. On the platform TON Vote initially there was a proposal to rename the TON ticker to GRAM, which was quickly deleted, after which the main vote was posted.
Analysts Durov's Code recorded an alarming disproportion:
🔹 Large holders: one of the wallets voting for rebranding holds ~1.5 million TON (~$3.3 million). This address is presumably associated with a miner from which almost 45 million TON a significant part of the early emission;
🔸 Small investors: in the first 15 minutes of the current vote ~90% of wallets opposed the rebranding. We are talking mainly about retail addresses with small balances - a total of TON is stored on them ~$578 866.
🔸 Small investors: in the first 15 minutes of the current vote ~90% of wallets opposed the rebranding. We are talking mainly about retail addresses with small balances - a total of TON is stored on them ~$578 866.
This pattern reproduces the classic problem of decentralized management: formally each token gives one vote, but in fact the decision can be determined by several large players, whose interests do not always coincide with the interests of the retail community.
📚 Historical context: why Gram is not just a name
Returning to the name Gram carries a deep symbolic and legal subtext:
✅ 20182019: Telegram attracted $$1.7 billion from accredited investors through the mechanism SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) to launch the Telegram Open Network with the Gram token;
❌ 2019: The SEC obtained a temporary ban on token distribution, insisting that Grams are unregistered securities, and requiring the application of Howey test to the whole scheme, including secondary resale;
❌ 2020: the Southern District of New York court supported the SEC's position, calling the initial token sale part of a single investment contract;
🔄 Result: Durov officially ceased participation in the development of TON, returned part of the funds to investors, and the project was handed over to an independent community and renamed to Toncoin.
❌ 2019: The SEC obtained a temporary ban on token distribution, insisting that Grams are unregistered securities, and requiring the application of Howey test to the whole scheme, including secondary resale;
❌ 2020: the Southern District of New York court supported the SEC's position, calling the initial token sale part of a single investment contract;
🔄 Result: Durov officially ceased participation in the development of TON, returned part of the funds to investors, and the project was handed over to an independent community and renamed to Toncoin.
Returning to the name Gram 6 years after Durov left the project is not just nostalgia. It's an attempt to close the gestalt with regulators and the market, signaling: what the SEC blocked in 2020 is now legitimately developing as an independent ecosystem.
⚠️ Legal and market risks
However, rebranding creates several serious challenges:
🔸 Regulatory memory: The SEC may interpret the return to the name Gram as an attempt to circumvent previous court decisions, especially if the token is positioned as the successor of the original asset;
🔸 Market confusion: investors who bought Gram in 2018-2020 may claim rights to the new tokens, creating legal uncertainty;
🔸 Speculative pattern: a 19.5% increase with a subsequent correction to $2 indicates a classic buy the rumor, sell the news scheme - short-term speculators lock in profits on news hype;
🔸 Trust in management: if the vote is perceived as manipulable by large holders, it will undermine the narrative of TON's decentralization.
🔸 Market confusion: investors who bought Gram in 2018-2020 may claim rights to the new tokens, creating legal uncertainty;
🔸 Speculative pattern: a 19.5% increase with a subsequent correction to $2 indicates a classic buy the rumor, sell the news scheme - short-term speculators lock in profits on news hype;
🔸 Trust in management: if the vote is perceived as manipulable by large holders, it will undermine the narrative of TON's decentralization.
🎯 Strategic context: MTONGA as a systemic transformation
Rebranding is part of a broader MTONGA program, which includes:
✅ Step 1: accelerating the blockchain 10 times through Catchain 2.0 (April 9);
🔜 Step 2: reducing fees by 6 times;
🔜 Step 4: renaming TON to Gram (current stage);
🔜 Steps 3, 5, 6, 7: details will be disclosed later.
🔜 Step 2: reducing fees by 6 times;
🔜 Step 4: renaming TON to Gram (current stage);
🔜 Steps 3, 5, 6, 7: details will be disclosed later.
Such a phased strategy creates a continuous stream of positive news, supporting interest in the ecosystem. However, success depends on the team's ability to balance between technological innovations, decentralized management, and regulatory constraints.
📊 What's next?
Key factors determining further dynamics:
🔹 Voting results: if large holders push through the rebranding despite retail resistance, it may provoke an outflow of small investors;
🔹 SEC position: the regulator's silence will be perceived as implicit consent, active reaction - as an escalation of the conflict;
🔹 Technical implementation: successful transition of the ticker on all exchanges and in wallets within 3 weeks is critical for maintaining trust;
🔹 Next steps of MTONGA: announcements of steps 5-7 can support or destroy the current optimism.
🔹 SEC position: the regulator's silence will be perceived as implicit consent, active reaction - as an escalation of the conflict;
🔹 Technical implementation: successful transition of the ticker on all exchanges and in wallets within 3 weeks is critical for maintaining trust;
🔹 Next steps of MTONGA: announcements of steps 5-7 can support or destroy the current optimism.