Gram (prev. Toncoin) (GRAM) - Investment Analysis September 2026

Gram (prev. Toncoin) (GRAM): Investment Analysis

Executive assessment

Gram, formerly Toncoin, is a large-cap Layer 1 asset associated with The Open Network, or TON. Its investment case is unusually dependent on one strategic relationship: Telegram’s ability to convert its very large user base into recurring blockchain activity.

The thesis has genuine strengths:

• Privileged distribution through Telegram Mini Apps and wallet infrastructure.
• Meaningful network usage, stablecoin activity, and institutional support.
• A recognizable brand and a relatively large, liquid market.
• Potential utility in payments, staking, transaction fees, advertising payouts, and Telegram-native applications.

However, the current evidence also shows important weaknesses:

• The token remains roughly 79% below its June 2024 all-time high.
• Only about 1.78 to 2.2 million monthly active wallets have been reported, versus roughly one billion Telegram monthly active users.
• Nearly half of total supply is not circulating, creating dilution risk.
• DeFi liquidity and TVL have been volatile.
• The ecosystem remains materially smaller than Solana, Ethereum, and leading Ethereum Layer 2 networks in liquidity, developer depth, and crypto-native economic activity.
• Regulatory, governance, and operational exposure to Telegram has increased.
• Current derivatives funding is extremely negative, indicating bearish positioning but also elevated short-squeeze and volatility risk.

Overall, Gram has a credible but execution-dependent growth thesis. The rebrand itself does not materially improve token economics or network utility. Long-term value depends on whether Telegram distribution becomes durable payments, stablecoin settlement, DeFi, and application revenue rather than temporary incentive-driven activity.

Current market profile

The available market snapshot lists Gram at approximately $1.40, with a market capitalization of about $3.88 billion and a fully diluted valuation near $7.32 billion.

The market capitalization indicates that Gram is already an established large-cap asset rather than an early-stage micro-cap project. This provides better exchange access and liquidity than smaller networks, but it also means future upside must be supported by substantial additional capital and adoption.

The difference between circulating and total supply is particularly important. Approximately 2.46 billion tokens, close to 47% of total supply, were not circulating in the supplied data. This creates a potential supply overhang. Future emissions, distributions, or unlocks can pressure price unless demand grows sufficiently to absorb them.

The liquidity score of 47.10 suggests usable but not exceptional market depth for an asset of this size. During a broad crypto-market selloff, moderate liquidity can amplify price movements.

Rebrand from Toncoin to Gram

The token rename was approved through a reported community governance vote that received 81.22% support. The change took effect at 12:00 UTC on June 15, 2026.

The important distinction is:

The stated rationale was to restore “Gram,” the name used in Telegram’s original 2018 TON whitepaper. The change was therefore primarily a branding and historical realignment, not a technological upgrade, supply reduction, governance redesign, or new source of cash flow.

This creates both advantages and risks:

• Potential advantage: stronger alignment between Telegram, the TON ecosystem, and the original Gram concept.
• Potential disadvantage: renewed confusion with Telegram’s original Gram offering, which was halted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Security risk: social-media discussion reported fake migration websites and fraudulent requests to “swap” TON for GRAM. A genuine rename should not require users to send funds to an unofficial migration address.

A critical verification issue remains: some research results distinguish Gram from Toncoin and note that “GRAM” can refer to unrelated or ambiguously branded assets. The market, ecosystem, and derivatives data discussed here primarily describe the established TON asset and its reported 1:1 rename. Investors must verify the exact contract, exchange listing, and custody asset before treating GRAM and TON as economically identical.

Historical performance and market-cycle context

The token’s available price history shows substantial volatility.

At approximately $1.40, the asset is around 79% below its reported all-time high of $8.06. It is still above its early tracked low, but the drawdown demonstrates that strong narrative visibility did not produce sustained price appreciation through the subsequent market period.

The 2025-to-2026 decline was approximately 55%, based on the reported September 2025 starting price of $3.14 and the September 2026 price of $1.40. This is consistent with a market reassessment of growth expectations, weakening speculative demand, or broader risk-off conditions.

The historical pattern highlights two opposing characteristics:

• Gram has demonstrated the ability to attract substantial capital during favorable market and narrative conditions.
• It has not yet demonstrated that those valuations are supported by stable, recurring token demand across less favorable conditions.

The 2024 high may also act as a significant psychological resistance level. A return toward that price would require not only a broad crypto-market recovery, but also visible improvement in active usage, liquidity, token demand, and investor confidence.

Adoption and network activity

Wallets and active users

Reported network figures vary considerably because different sources use different definitions.

The official TON website reported approximately:

• 2.2 million monthly active wallets.
• 4.1 million transactions over 24 hours.
• 179.7 million smart contracts.
• 393 validators.
• 1,022 nodes.

A June 2026 CoinShares research note reported:

• Approximately 1.78 million monthly active wallets.
• Approximately 2.16 million daily transactions.
• Approximately 3.8 million weekly active transactions.
• Approximately 43,600 daily new wallet activations.
• Approximately 162 million cumulative on-chain account activations.

These figures are not directly interchangeable. Cumulative account activations, wallet registrations, monthly active wallets, and users interacting with Telegram Wallet represent different levels of engagement. The larger cumulative figures should not be treated as equivalent to recurring economic users.

The most important adoption statistic is the conversion gap. Against roughly one billion Telegram monthly active users, the reported 1.78 to 2.2 million monthly active wallets represent only a small fraction of Telegram’s potential audience. CoinShares estimated the conversion rate at approximately 0.12%.

That gap supports both sides of the investment thesis:

• Bullish interpretation: TON has an unusually large untapped addressable market.
• Bearish interpretation: Telegram’s reach has so far produced relatively limited recurring on-chain usage.

The quality of adoption matters more than the headline audience. A user who receives an airdrop or briefly interacts with a game contributes less durable value than a user who holds stablecoins, pays merchants, trades, stakes, or repeatedly uses applications.

Transaction activity

TON’s official 2024 year-end report stated that the network added 36.2 million wallets during the year, reached $1.4 billion of net USDt circulation, and processed more than 26 million USDt transactions.

CoinShares estimated approximately 2.59 billion TON transactions and $184.3 billion of transaction value across 2024 and 2025, representing approximately 80% of historical transaction activity and 87% of historical transaction value under its methodology.

These figures indicate rapid network expansion, but raw transaction counts require careful interpretation. High transaction activity can be generated by:

• Airdrops.
• Tap-to-earn games.
• Bot activity.
• Low-value transfers.
• Automated DeFi interactions.
• Genuine payments and stablecoin settlement.

A sustainable investment thesis requires growth in economically meaningful transactions, fee generation, retention, and balances, not just a high number of transactions.

Some third-party reporting described daily transactions rising from approximately 100,000 in March 2024 to between 4 million and 9 million in later periods. The broad range and third-party methodology make the exact comparison uncertain, but the data supports the conclusion that activity expanded significantly during the period.

Telegram Mini Apps

The January 2025 agreement between Telegram and the TON Foundation was strategically important. TON became the exclusive blockchain infrastructure for Telegram’s blockchain-enabled Mini Apps, while TON Connect became the exclusive wallet-connection protocol.

This provides potential distribution for:

• Games.
• In-app purchases.
• Stablecoin payments.
• Digital collectibles.
• Creator monetization.
• Advertising payouts.
• DeFi applications.
• Telegram-native commerce.

Applications such as Notcoin, Hamster Kombat, and Catizen helped demonstrate how rapidly Telegram-linked applications can acquire users. However, application-reported user counts and campaign participation figures should not be assumed to represent recurring, economically active blockchain users.

Reports cited more than 650 dApps and over 200 ecosystem tokens in mid-2025. Another 2026 source cited approximately 787 applications across games, NFT products, social applications, launchpads, groups, and development tools. Definitions differ, so these numbers demonstrate ecosystem breadth but do not establish a directly comparable growth trend.

The long-term question is whether Mini Apps evolve beyond short-lived engagement campaigns. TON Pay, announced in 2026, was positioned as a payment SDK for Telegram Mini Apps and merchants to accept Toncoin and stablecoins through simplified checkout. Commercial payments would generally be a stronger source of recurring demand than speculative game activity.

DeFi, TVL, and liquidity

TON’s DeFi growth was substantial during 2024, but TVL has been volatile.

Reported figures included:

• Approximately $13.8 million early in 2024.
• Approximately $525 million by June 2024.
• Other reports placed mid-2024 TVL near $600 million to $650 million.
• Cointelegraph later cited approximately $307.6 million.

The divergence reflects differences in timing, data sources, token prices, incentive programs, and asset inclusion. It also demonstrates that TON’s DeFi base can move sharply with market conditions.

An October 2025 ecosystem update reported that:

• STON.fi had more than 94,000 unique wallets over 30 days.
• STON.fi processed approximately $56.7 million in 30-day transaction volume.
• A TONCO TON/USDT pool recorded a reported 225% 30-day average APR.

The reported APR is not evidence of sustainable returns. Triple-digit yields generally reflect a combination of trading fees, incentives, low initial liquidity, or elevated risk. Such yields can attract short-term capital that leaves when incentives decline.

TON ecosystem reporting also referred to approximately $650 million of DeFi TVL during a previous cycle. The broad conclusion is that TON has a real DeFi ecosystem, but its liquidity remains considerably smaller and less mature than that of Ethereum, Solana, and major Ethereum Layer 2s.

For comparison, cited 2025 figures placed:

These comparisons are directional because methodologies differ. Nevertheless, they show that TON’s market capitalization is supported more by its Telegram distribution narrative than by DeFi liquidity alone.

Revenue model and token value capture

The economic case for Gram depends on whether network usage creates persistent demand for the token.

Potential sources of demand include:

• Transaction fees.
• Staking and validator participation.
• Governance.
• Telegram-related payments.
• Stablecoin settlement.
• Mini App purchases.
• Advertising and creator payouts.
• Digital collectibles.
• DeFi liquidity and trading.
• Merchant payments through TON Pay.

The bull case is that Telegram can turn Gram into a widely used settlement asset inside a large consumer platform. More users and more transactions could increase demand for network fees, staking, and liquidity.

The weakness is that user growth does not automatically translate into token value capture. A Mini App can be popular while generating limited demand for Gram, especially if users transact primarily in stablecoins or if activity is heavily subsidized. A network can also process many transactions without generating sufficient fees to justify its valuation.

The most important metrics to monitor are therefore:

CoinShares reported a staking ratio near 9%, compared with approximately 66% for Solana and 28% for Ethereum. If staking adoption increased materially, it could reduce liquid supply and support a valuation re-rating. Conversely, the relatively low staking ratio currently provides less evidence of strong structural token lock-up.

Competitive landscape

Positioning versus Solana

Solana is the strongest direct crypto-native comparison. It has deeper DeFi liquidity, greater trading activity, stronger developer mindshare, and a more mature institutional ecosystem.

One cited 2025 comparison estimated:

The exact definitions may differ, but the gap is strategically important. TON’s strength is not superior crypto-native liquidity; it is access to Telegram’s distribution channel. Solana has stronger existing on-chain economic depth, while TON offers more potential upside if Telegram users convert into persistent blockchain users.

Positioning versus Ethereum and Ethereum Layer 2s

Ethereum retains major advantages in:

• Security and decentralization.
• Developer tooling.
• Institutional adoption.
• Total value locked.
• Stablecoin liquidity.
• Real-world asset infrastructure.
• Protocol composability.

Ethereum Layer 2 networks such as Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base compete with TON for low-cost consumer transactions. Their advantage is access to Ethereum’s liquidity and developer ecosystem. TON’s advantage is its unified relationship with Telegram.

The competitive question is whether distribution or composability becomes the stronger long-term moat. TON can onboard users more directly, but Ethereum’s ecosystem gives applications access to a much larger existing pool of capital and developers.

Positioning versus Sui, Aptos, BNB Chain, and TRON

Sui and Aptos compete in high-throughput consumer and gaming applications. BNB Chain has much stronger user activity and liquidity in the cited comparisons. TRON has a particularly strong position in low-cost stablecoin transfers.

TON’s differentiation is therefore not simply speed or transaction fees. Many competing networks offer similar technical characteristics. Its potential moat is Telegram-native distribution, wallet integration, Mini Apps, and payments.

Institutional interest and major holders

Institutional infrastructure around TON expanded during 2025 and 2026.

Reported developments included:

• More than $400 million of Toncoin investment from leading venture-capital firms, according to the TON Foundation.
• A $558 million private placement by Verb Technology, later associated with TON Strategy Company, to establish a public-market TON treasury strategy.
• Approximately 217 million TON held by the treasury vehicle, reported as around 4.23% of total supply at the time.
• Approximately $4.0 million of staking-related income reported by TON Strategy Company during 2025.
• Crypto.com Custody support for TON custody and staking.
• Institutional staking infrastructure through P2P.org and BitGo.
• Additional institutional activity involving custody providers, staking companies, exchange-traded products, and TON treasury companies.

This improves accessibility for larger investors and provides additional validation that TON is being treated as an institutionally investable asset.

It does not, however, eliminate concentration risk. A treasury vehicle holding roughly 4% of total supply can affect liquidity, governance, staking dynamics, and market psychology. The supplied research does not provide a complete holder-distribution analysis, institutional ownership percentage, average institutional entry prices, or verified unlock schedule. Major-holder concentration therefore remains an unresolved risk.

Team, leadership, and governance

TON originated from Telegram’s earlier blockchain initiative but continued as an open-source network after Telegram withdrew from the original project. The TON Foundation has coordinated ecosystem development through grants, regional hubs, partnerships, and developer programs.

Pavel Durov provides a significant credibility and distribution advantage because of his role in building Telegram into a global communications platform. His involvement can accelerate product integration and user acquisition in ways that most blockchain projects cannot replicate.

The same relationship creates concentration risk:

• Telegram is increasingly central to TON’s adoption strategy.
• Durov’s decisions may have substantial influence over the ecosystem.
• Validator concentration and governance arrangements have become more important as Telegram’s role expands.
• Greater alignment with Telegram increases exposure to Telegram’s legal, political, and operational circumstances.

In May 2026, Durov reportedly announced that Telegram would replace the TON Foundation as the principal driving force behind TON and become its largest validator. Details regarding the size of Telegram’s stake, the Foundation’s continuing role, and the resulting governance structure remained unclear.

This creates a trade-off between execution and neutrality. Stronger Telegram control could accelerate integration, but it could also reduce perceived decentralization and make the network more dependent on one company and one leadership team.

Developer activity and ecosystem development

TON has shown organized efforts to recruit developers and grow applications.

Reported activity included:

The grants-and-bounties program was reportedly paused while its structure and priorities were reviewed. This does not necessarily indicate a problem, but it is a point to monitor.

The evidence is stronger for builder recruitment, hackathons, grants, and regional ecosystem activity than for independently verified developer retention. Earlier research cited approximately 175 monthly active developers for TON at the end of 2023, compared with more than 1,600 for Solana at that time. TON’s developer growth rate may be healthy, but its absolute developer base remains smaller than leading competing networks.

Community and social sentiment

Social sentiment in 2026 was predominantly long-term bullish but short-term cautious.

Positive themes

Community and KOL discussion emphasized:

• Telegram’s roughly one-billion-user audience.
• Native wallet distribution.
• Mini Apps and Telegram-native games.
• Stablecoin payments and creator monetization.
• Institutional custody and staking.
• Validator and wallet infrastructure upgrades.
• The possibility of mass adoption before the broader market fully recognizes the network.

Accounts such as @JakeGagain, @Szymansk_ii, and @0xEthan expressed strong long-term conviction based primarily on Telegram’s distribution advantage. Utility-focused discussion highlighted DeFi, payments, and infrastructure applications such as Storm Trade, DeDust, TON Station, Fragment-related products, and RedotPay.

Cautious and negative themes

Short-term traders were more cautious, citing:

• Weak price structure.
• Rebound-selling zones.
• Continued underperformance.
• Uncertainty about user conversion.
• Speculative rather than durable Mini App activity.
• Limited native liquidity.
• Security problems and scams.

Social engagement peaked around the June rebrand and declined through July and August. The highest-engagement content focused on Telegram’s potential and the historical return to the Gram name, while technical upgrades and application-level developments attracted less attention.

This suggests that community enthusiasm remains driven more by future potential and brand association than by independently verified revenue, retention, or token value capture.

The rebrand itself was generally viewed as symbolically positive and operationally neutral. It did not create a sustained new investment thesis after the initial announcement.

Regulatory, legal, and security risks

Original SEC action

The historical legal issue is significant because the name “Gram” is directly associated with Telegram’s original token offering.

In 2019, the SEC alleged that Telegram’s sale of approximately 2.9 billion Grams to 171 initial purchasers constituted an unregistered securities offering. In March 2020, a U.S. federal court issued an injunction preventing distribution.

Telegram later settled with the SEC and agreed to:

• Return more than $1.2 billion to investors.
• Pay an $18.5 million civil penalty.

The current asset developed through the open-source TON community after Telegram withdrew from the original project. Nevertheless, restoring the Gram name may create renewed confusion and potentially renewed regulatory attention. The rebrand does not erase the legal history of the original offering.

Telegram-related exposure

Pavel Durov’s arrest in France in August 2024 and the continuing judicial investigation increased reputational and operational risk. Telegram also changed its terms of service in September 2024 to permit disclosure of user IP addresses and phone numbers to authorities following valid legal requests.

The closer TON becomes to Telegram infrastructure, the greater the two-sided effect:

• Telegram integration can accelerate adoption.
• Legal or regulatory action affecting Telegram could impair access, sentiment, or development.

Ecosystem security

Social discussion reported:

• Fake Gram migration offers.
• Locked funds and questionable marketplace activity.
• Allegations of wash trading and investor liquidations.
• Mini App vulnerabilities involving session tokens and possible account takeover.
• Fraudulent or low-quality Telegram-integrated projects.

These reports do not prove that the TON base blockchain is insecure. They do show that a fast-growing permissionless application ecosystem, inexperienced users, and brand confusion can create substantial application-layer and reputational risk.

Derivatives and market-positioning analysis

The available derivatives data covers Toncoin rather than necessarily every asset trading under the GRAM ticker. The data also had important gaps: open interest, liquidations, Fear & Greed, and the Binance TONUSDT long/short ratio could not be verified because of API rate limits.

The available funding-rate data was unusually bearish.

The current funding rate of −0.8101% per day is far below a commonly watched oversold threshold near −0.03%. This indicates that perpetual-futures traders are paying a large cost to maintain short exposure.

That can produce a short squeeze if:

• Spot demand improves.
• The broader crypto market turns higher.
• A positive Telegram or ecosystem catalyst appears.
• Open interest is high enough to create forced buying.

It is not automatically bullish. Negative funding can remain extreme throughout a sustained downtrend when shorts are correctly anticipating weak demand. Without open interest, it is impossible to distinguish crowded shorts from a smaller market with low absolute leverage.

The key scenarios are:

The derivatives picture therefore indicates high two-sided volatility rather than a clear directional opportunity.

Bull case

1. Telegram provides a differentiated distribution channel

Most Layer 1 networks must acquire users independently. TON can potentially reach Telegram users through wallets, Mini Apps, payments, advertising, creator payouts, and digital assets.

This is the central strategic advantage. If even a modest portion of Telegram’s user base becomes persistent on-chain users, TON’s current user base and liquidity could expand substantially.

2. Network activity has grown rapidly

The reported growth in wallets, transactions, stablecoin circulation, and DeFi TVL demonstrates that TON is not merely a branding project. The 2024 report’s 36.2 million added wallets, $1.4 billion of net USDt circulation, and more than 26 million USDt transactions are evidence of meaningful ecosystem expansion.

3. Telegram-native payments could improve value capture

The development of TON Pay and related Telegram payment infrastructure could move the ecosystem from speculative games toward recurring commercial activity. Payments, merchant settlement, and creator payouts may generate more durable demand than one-time airdrops.

4. Institutional infrastructure is improving

Treasury vehicles, venture investments, custody services, staking providers, and institutional integrations make TON more accessible to larger market participants.

5. The valuation could rerate if adoption conversion improves

CoinShares published scenario levels of $1 in a bear case, $3.50 in a base case, and $7.50 in a bull case over a 12-month framework. These are scenarios, not reliable forecasts, but they illustrate the market’s sensitivity to adoption assumptions. A move toward the upper end would require much stronger conversion of Telegram activity into economically meaningful TON usage.

6. Negative funding creates potential technical upside

Extreme short positioning can amplify a rebound. If spot demand improves while derivatives traders remain heavily short, forced short covering could produce a rapid move independent of immediate fundamental repricing.

Bear case

1. Telegram reach has not yet translated into comparable blockchain usage

Approximately 1.78 to 2.2 million monthly active wallets remain very small relative to Telegram’s roughly one billion monthly active users. This may represent a large opportunity, but it also shows that the conversion thesis remains unproven.

2. Activity may be heavily incentive-driven

Tap-to-earn games, airdrops, and GameFi campaigns can create impressive wallet and transaction figures without producing durable retention, fees, or token demand. Reports of a 95% decline in new users from peak levels and a 72% decline in TVL highlight the risk of post-incentive contraction, although the source’s date metadata was inconsistent.

3. DeFi liquidity is relatively shallow

TON’s TVL is materially below Ethereum, Solana, major Ethereum Layer 2s, and even some newer Layer 1s such as Sui and Aptos in cited comparisons. Limited liquidity can restrict trading, lending, collateral use, and institutional participation.

4. Supply dilution is substantial

With only 2.778 billion of 5.241 billion total supply circulating, future distribution or emissions could pressure price. Demand must grow faster than supply for the token to appreciate sustainably.

5. Competition is intense

Solana, Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Sui, Aptos, BNB Chain, and TRON all compete for users, developers, stablecoins, liquidity, and applications.

TON’s differentiation is primarily distribution, not an unassailable technical advantage. If competing chains gain access to Telegram users through bridges, alternative wallets, or application-level integration, TON’s exclusivity advantage could weaken.

6. Telegram dependence creates concentration risk

The same relationship that creates TON’s strongest growth opportunity also creates its largest vulnerability. Changes to Telegram’s product strategy, leadership, legal status, monetization, wallet policies, or regional accessibility could materially affect the network.

7. Governance could become more centralized

Telegram becoming the largest validator or principal driving force behind TON may improve coordination, but it raises questions about validator concentration, governance neutrality, and dependence on a single company.

8. The token’s market history shows weak durability

A decline from approximately $8.06 to $1.40 demonstrates that narrative momentum can reverse sharply. The asset’s ability to rally during a bull market does not establish that it can preserve value when speculative demand fades.

Risk/reward assessment by investor profile

Because Gram has both a large established market and substantial execution risk, its suitability depends heavily on risk tolerance and investment horizon.

Key indicators to monitor

The investment thesis would strengthen if the following trends appear together:

1. Monthly active wallets continue rising after incentive programs decline.
2. Telegram-native users show repeated activity rather than one-time participation.
3. Stablecoin balances and payment volume increase.
4. TON Pay achieves meaningful merchant and Mini App adoption.
5. TVL and DEX volume grow without unsustainable incentive rates.
6. Fees and protocol revenue rise alongside transactions.
7. Staking participation increases from the reported approximately 9%.
8. Developer retention and production application revenue improve.
9. Institutional ownership broadens beyond a few treasury vehicles.
10. Governance and validator concentration become more transparent.
11. Supply emissions are absorbed by organic demand.
12. Derivatives funding normalizes while spot volume improves.

Conversely, persistent decline in active wallets, TVL, fees, and developer retention would indicate that the Telegram narrative is not translating into durable economics.

Conclusion

Gram is not simply a speculative rebrand. It represents a large Layer 1 ecosystem with meaningful network activity, stablecoin usage, developer programs, institutional infrastructure, and a potentially powerful distribution relationship with Telegram.

The strongest part of the thesis is distribution. TON has access to a consumer platform that most competing networks cannot directly replicate. If Telegram-native wallets, Mini Apps, payments, advertising, and stablecoins become habitual, the network could grow substantially from its current scale.

The weakest part of the thesis is conversion and value capture. Reported active wallets remain a small fraction of Telegram’s audience, DeFi liquidity is relatively shallow and volatile, developer depth trails leading competitors, and a large portion of supply remains outside circulation. The token is also exposed to Telegram’s legal, operational, and governance risks.

The objective conclusion is that Gram has a credible but high-execution-risk investment profile. It offers more fundamental support than a purely narrative token, but its valuation still depends heavily on future adoption rather than established cash-flow-like economics. The rebrand may improve brand alignment, but it does not independently create additional value. Risk tolerance should be assessed against the possibility of both substantial further downside and sharp upside volatility, particularly while derivatives funding remains extremely negative.