For the last 2,5 years some of our best engineers have been working on a next-generation blockchain platform called TON and a cryptocurrency we were going to name Gram. TON was designed to share the principles of decentralization pioneered by Bitcoin and Ethereum, but to be vastly superior to them in speed and scalability.
We were very proud with the result – the technology we created allowed for an open, free, decentralized exchange of value and ideas. When integrated with Telegram, TON had the potential…
“So yes, it is true that other countries do not have full sovereignty over what to allow on their territory”.
Such a hard truth to swallow, but definitely a truth.
Great post by @durov. https://t.co/ha9RJXWnls
Andrew "Not cool enough for an ETH scam" Glidden - @asglidden2 weeks ago
What exactly was ambitious about it, other than the amount of money they were trying to squeeze out of retail investors? https://t.co/uDCIGPPEB4
interesting note from @telegram founder @durov on the end of their blockchain project + token
he hits some poignant points, but misses this key one:
perhaps one can create "decentralization, balance, and equity in the world" without $1.7B for a token?
Telegram raised around $2b from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley for one of the most ambitious blockchain/cryptocurrency projects out there.
Now Telegram is calling it quits on the whole thing after the SEC stepped in.
/u/dgerard I have no idea why this got auto removed by reddit.
You're an approved poster here so nothing you post should get blocked by the filters & I manually clicked the approve button a bunch of times but it stays stuck in the mod queue. Maybe reddit is banning links with telegra.ph as the host or something.
Your submission We – the 96% of the world’s population living elsewhere – are dependent on decision makers elected by the 4% living in the US. was automatically removed because telegra.ph is not on our approved source whitelist. r/politics has a number of conditions that domains must adhere to in order to be approved as an acceptable source. Domains must:
Be notable, as defined by our domain notability guidelines. Notable domains will consist of news organizations, research organizations, political advocacy groups, governmental agencies / bodies, and political parties.
Contain articles, videos or sound-clips relevant to current US politics
Contain original content that has not been stolen or rehosted from another source.
Be accessible at least once without paying for a subscription or completing a survey.
If you believe that you have a domain that is eligible for our approved whitelist, please use the link at the end of this message to submit it to us. However please note that if you submit spam or rule breaking content to us via the form, we will match the domain against this submission and may take action against your account. If you submit a spam domain via the form, your account may be reported to the site administrators. To submit a domain for approval use this form and follow the instructions provided
His analogy is pretty poor IMO. A more realistic analogy is: imagine if a group of people got together and bought a plot of land to mine gold. Then imagine these people told all of their friends that they had a gold mine and were willing to split the output of the gold mine with all of their friends for just $10k/piece.
Now imagine the government said: hey, you don't even know if there's gold on that land, but you're promising your investors that there is. And not only are they telling us we can't sell part of our non-existent gold to our friends, we can't sell it to people ANYWHERE.
Sound completely unfair? Government overstep? We aren't allowed to sell people something that doesn't exist?
this is a disingenuous post. The crux of the SEC effort against them is because they created this chain and token during the 2017 gold rush (actually in 2018 but obviously the 2017 bull run is what sparked the interest) and very clearly were trying to cash in. When you create what by all accounts is a security specifically for investment and asset appreciation but don't register it as a security with the SEC, they get a little unhappy. Reading back through some of the articles before this when the SEC intervened Telegram had raised 1.7 billion dollars off this. When you make a few billion off an unregistered security offering, people are going to sit up and take notice.
Regardless of your feelings on the SEC, crypto, et al, it's pretty obvious why the SEC intervened and to see this eventual outcome.
“We allege that the defendants have failed to provide investors with information regarding Grams and Telegram’s business operations, financial condition, risk factors, and management that the securities laws require.”
“Telegram seeks to obtain the benefits of a public offering without complying with the long-established disclosure responsibilities designed to protect the investing public.”
Filing for a US initial public offering requires much writing and some audits, but it's not inherently difficult. Thousands of marginal companies have done IPOs. That's where penny stocks come from. The SEC doesn't evaluate your business model. All they insist is that you don't lie.
Now, if you want to list on an exchange, have your IPO underwritten by a major financial firm, and get institutional investors to buy your stock, there's more to do. But those aren't SEC requirements. You can IPO without them and peddle your own shares.
When reading this article, I got an impression that US government banned Telegram from issuing certain securities, but after reading comments and links I come to the conclusion it's not the case and actually US government just said "it's a security, so you have to follow our securities procedures". Granted, those are not very fun, but that's not what Telegram complaint is - it looks like they tried to sneak a fast one and it didn't work. Well done Telegram marketing for temporarily misleading me, I guess.
As a long time Telegram fan - albeit less than before - I'm happy to see this go:
Why do everyone have to try to create another blockchain?
Why can't companies just be honest enough to either name a price up front or make a freemium model or something?
Hopefully this will cause them to reconsider payments like old WhatsApp or something else that aligns with the interests of the users?
Edit: add second part of a broken sentence. Also: the niche that WhatsApp used to hold (paid, reasonable price, good ux, no ads or spying) still isn't too crowded.
Signal is important and I am happy to recommend it but there's a lot of room still for others who want to enter the small communities/group-of-friends messaging space. The best alternatives I have found so far are: MeWe (pretty close to Google+, but with a business model that isn't based on selling data or ads), Telegram and of course still WhatsApp if you can stomach it.
To all the people says that they should have just followed security laws, you don't understand the purpose of TON and GRAM. It CAN NOT work if it is a security. The Idea was that Telegram user have a wallet and can store/send GRAMs to each-other Donate/tip and buy stuff. This is not possible/allowed with securities. You can only buy/sell securities form/to regulated exchanges. It completely destroys it's whole use-case.
Anyway they could still do it with some kind of distributed token generation, similar to mining so tokens are generated by the users and not sold. But this obviously would not make the investors happy because they get nothing then.
I wonder how Telegram will subsist and how it’s going to generate money for the longer term.
Since it stores all messages and media by default (except secret chats) on its cloud, the infrastructure costs will keep going up at some pace with time.
It was only a few weeks ago that Telegram announced that it has 400 million monthly active users.
How long can Pavel Durov’s wealth keep it alive and how much of his wealth will he continue to commit to the platform as time passes? The platform is surely synonymous with him (at least from his perspective), and there are millions of people who need it and trust it (it’s the only app that large groups of protestors in Hong Kong could safely use).
I like Telegram as an app and service but have reasonable doubt of how it’s gonna be sustainable. WhatsApp had 400m MAU and $1m monthly cost in 2013 before acquisition, Telegram reached same MAU recently and avg cost is 4x or more. Founder had about $300m when forced to exit VK. If my math is right, he can’t really keep running this all free much longer.
I don't exactly understand how US court could forbid Telegram anything. Yeah-yeah, there is an "explanation", but I have hard time buying into it. USA can have far more power than it should, but by no means it's all-powerful, there is a ton of shit in the world that USA may not like, but it exists anyway and even manages to have USA-based customers through some shady as fuck, absolutely nonsensical, but still somehow legal schemes.
So I'm reading this as "our plan has failed for whatever reason, so now we are getting rid of it, while pretending that it is a very hard decision for us and somebody else entirely is to blame".
> Imagine that several people put their money together to build a gold mine.
This is what's wrong about what they're trying to do.
TON is selling tokenized access to the supposed gold mine. The gold is the TON product which is just a chat software.
I'm glad regulators ban it. It's a scam.
You need to look at the gold, the business. The BNB Binance token could be a better token. At least, their business has better prospect. I would stay away from these tokens. They're just security masquerading as crypto. They're likely scams.
If they really cared about decentralization, they would still release the protocol and software even if they cannot profit from it. I'm tired of greedy cryptocurrency advocates putting on airs of social responsibility.
Group of faceless people against a scenic vista, arms around and supporting each other, under the flag of the "product", facing a gold mine that apparently self-produces gold and a sun that just so happens to be shining light on all that wonderful gold... with a dog(?) chasing a golden butterfly.
I've never used telegram before but I think the CEO should distance himself a bit more.