Gram (prev. Toncoin) (GRAM) - Price Potential September 2026

Executive assessment

Gram, formerly Toncoin, could plausibly trade in the $5–$8 range in a successful base case, with an optimistic but still defensible ceiling around $10–$15 if Telegram distribution converts into durable payments, stablecoin settlement, Mini App activity, and deeper DeFi liquidity.

A more aggressive $20–$30 outcome is mathematically possible during an exceptionally strong crypto cycle, but it would require a substantially larger economic network than currently demonstrated. At roughly 2.7–2.8 billion circulating tokens, those prices would imply approximately $54–$84 billion in circulating market capitalization. That would put Gram among the largest Layer-1 networks and require more than a successful rebrand or a rise in wallet registrations.

The analysis is complicated by inconsistent market data. One data set places Gram near $1.39 and a $3.87 billion market cap, while another reports approximately $3.18 and a $7.86 billion market cap. The derivatives data also warns that TON and GRAM ticker mappings may be inconsistent across providers. The calculations below therefore use ranges and clearly stated supply assumptions rather than treating one data source as definitive.

---

Current valuation and data-quality caveat

The primary market-data result reports:

Other research reports approximately $1.36–$1.40, a market capitalization of $3.8–$3.9 billion, and circulating supply near 2.76–3.0 billion. However, another CoinGecko result reports approximately $3.18, a $7.86 billion market cap, and 2.47 billion circulating tokens.

That discrepancy is material. It may reflect:

• Different snapshot times,
• Different circulating-supply methodologies,
• Ticker or rebrand mapping issues,
• Inclusion of different markets,
• Or a distinction between the renamed TON asset and another token using the GRAM label.

The rebrand is described as a name change rather than a token migration. Under that interpretation, balances, addresses, contracts, trading pairs, and historical TON data remain relevant. However, any exchange purchase or derivatives position should be checked carefully to confirm that the listed asset is the same network asset.

For the scenario analysis, the most consistent current assumption is approximately 2.7–2.8 billion circulating tokens and roughly 5.2 billion total supply.

---

Market-cap comparison with major Layer-1 competitors

The primary comparison data show the following:

At approximately $3.87 billion, Gram is:

• About 1.3% of Ethereum’s market cap,
• About 4.2% of BNB’s,
• About 6.4% of Solana’s,
• About 12.3% of TRON’s.

This comparison suggests that Gram is no longer a small experimental network, but it remains far below the valuation of established smart-contract platforms. Its strongest differentiation is not necessarily superior technology. Low fees and high throughput are also offered by Solana, BNB Chain, TRON, Sui, Aptos, and Ethereum Layer-2 networks.

Gram’s distinctive proposition is distribution through Telegram. That gives it a potential consumer-access advantage, but the market will ultimately need evidence that this distribution creates recurring token demand.

What competitor valuations imply

Using the current approximately 2.778 billion circulating supply:

Matching the current valuation of TRON would imply approximately $11.34 per token at today’s circulating supply. Reaching Solana’s current market capitalization would imply approximately $21.71, while matching BNB would imply roughly $33.11.

These are not price forecasts. They show the amount of economic growth required. A move toward $10 would require Gram to become a platform valued in the same broad class as established large-cap networks. A move above $20 would require it to approach the current scale of Solana or exceed the current valuation of TRON.

---

Historical all-time high

The reported historical high is approximately $8.23–$8.29, reached in June 2024, with $8.25 on June 15, 2024 frequently cited.

At approximately 2.778 billion circulating tokens, an $8.25 price would imply:

• Circulating market capitalization of roughly $22.9 billion,
• Fully diluted value of roughly $43.2 billion at 5.241 billion total supply.

Using the alternative 2.47 billion circulating-supply estimate, the same price would imply:

• Circulating market capitalization of approximately $20.4 billion,
• Fully diluted value of approximately $42.4 billion.

Therefore, returning to the former ATH requires considerably more than a simple return to historical sentiment. From approximately $1.39, the move to $8.25 would be about 5.9 times. More importantly, the required circulating market capitalization is now around $20–23 billion, depending on the supply estimate.

The 2024 peak was supported by several simultaneous catalysts:

• Growing Telegram wallet and Mini App integration,
• Strong interest in Telegram-native games and airdrops,
• The launch and expansion of USDT on TON,
• Telegram advertising-revenue initiatives using TON,
• Rising TVL and ecosystem activity,
• Broad crypto-market liquidity,
• Increased institutional and venture-capital attention.

The peak therefore demonstrates that the market has previously assigned Gram/Toncoin a platform premium. It does not prove that the valuation is sustainable today. Some 2024 activity was driven by games, rewards, and speculative campaigns, which can produce large numbers of addresses without creating long-term holders or recurring economic demand.

A further complication is supply methodology. Decrypt reported that a correction to TON’s circulating-supply data caused market capitalization to fall by more than $7 billion in May 2024. This illustrates why historical market-cap comparisons must use consistent supply figures.

---

Supply dynamics and their effect on price potential

The current supply structure is a major constraint:

• Circulating supply: approximately 2.778 billion,
• Total supply: approximately 5.241 billion,
• Non-circulating amount: approximately 2.463 billion,
• Circulating supply as a share of total supply: approximately 53%,
• FDV divided by market cap: approximately 1.89 times.

The reported maximum supply is not consistently defined. Some data providers describe maximum supply as unlimited, while current total supply is around 5.2 billion. Ongoing validator issuance, staking rewards, ecosystem distributions, and previously unavailable balances may therefore increase the effective supply over time.

The basic relationship is:

Token price = market capitalization ÷ circulating supply

This means a price target becomes more difficult to reach as supply expands. For example, using 2.778 billion circulating tokens:

If circulating supply increased to 3.5 billion tokens, the same prices would require:

Supply growth does not automatically prevent appreciation. If user growth, transaction demand, staking demand, liquidity needs, or collateral demand expand faster than supply, price can still rise. However, future issuance creates a continuous demand requirement. If adoption remains flat while the supply base grows, dilution can absorb much of the upside.

Fee burning and staking lockups may offset part of the dilution. Staked tokens can also reduce liquid supply temporarily. However, staking does not permanently remove tokens, and the impact depends on the balance between issuance, fee burning, and actual demand for network security.

---

Telegram distribution and the adoption curve

Telegram is Gram’s most important strategic asset. Official and industry sources cite a Telegram audience ranging from approximately 950 million monthly active users to more than 1 billion users, depending on the date and definition.

That figure represents potential distribution, not current blockchain adoption.

TON’s official website reports approximately:

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

A CoinShares research note cited approximately:

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

Historical TON reports cited:

• 3.5 million active on-chain wallets,
• 16.9 million total accounts,
• $169 million TVL,
• More than 6.6 million Telegram Wallet monthly active users,
• More than 6 million TON Space monthly active users.

These figures are not directly interchangeable. A wallet, account, address, wallet registration, monthly active user, and daily active user are different measures. Automated transactions, bots, custodial accounts, and users operating multiple addresses can also inflate activity metrics.

Some social-media claims are much larger, including hundreds of millions of wallets, approximately 100 million wallet sign-ups, hundreds of millions of Mini App users, and billions of monthly transactions. These figures should be treated as unverified ecosystem claims, not as equivalent to independently verified recurring users.

The four stages of adoption

Gram appears to have made substantial progress in distribution and activation. The main valuation question is whether it can reach durable retention and economic depth.

A Telegram user who creates a wallet for a one-time promotion may not generate lasting demand for Gram. Conversely, a user who regularly pays for services, receives creator income, transfers stablecoins, trades digital assets, or interacts with Mini Apps creates more persistent network activity.

---

Network effects and token value capture

Gram has a potentially powerful two-sided network effect:

1. Telegram provides a large existing audience.
2. Developers build Mini Apps where that audience already exists.
3. More applications create reasons for users to remain inside Telegram.
4. More users attract stablecoin issuers, liquidity providers, merchants, advertisers, and financial applications.
5. Greater liquidity and application variety reduce onboarding friction for new users.

The risk is that this may remain a Telegram-platform network effect rather than a fully independent protocol network effect. If users remain inside Telegram but applications settle primarily in stablecoins, the economic benefits may accrue to Telegram, application operators, or stablecoin issuers rather than directly to GRAM holders.

Gram can capture value through:

• Gas fees,
• Staking and validator demand,
• Liquidity and collateral use,
• Network security,
• Application settlement,
• Exchange and wallet liquidity,
• Speculative demand associated with ecosystem growth.

The relationship is not one-to-one. A network can process substantial payment volume without creating proportional token appreciation if users hold stablecoins and transaction fees are abstracted away. The strongest fundamental case would involve applications that require or consistently use Gram for fees, staking, collateral, liquidity, or settlement.

---

Payments, stablecoins, Mini Apps, and DeFi

Stablecoins and payments

Stablecoin liquidity is one of Gram’s more credible utility indicators. Research results cite approximately $751 million of stablecoins on TON, with USDT representing the majority. Other ecosystem materials cite approximately 1.4 billion USDT circulating on TON and more than 26 million USDT transactions in a 2024 year-end report.

The difference between these figures likely reflects different dates or methodologies, but the strategic point is consistent: stablecoin activity may be more durable than speculative token launches.

Potential use cases include:

• Cross-border transfers,
• Remittances,
• Creator payments,
• Merchant payments,
• Advertising payouts,
• Peer-to-peer transfers,
• Telegram subscriptions and digital goods.

The key issue is whether those transactions create meaningful demand for GRAM or occur primarily in USDT and other stablecoins.

Mini Apps and consumer applications

In January 2025, the TON Foundation announced that TON would become the exclusive blockchain infrastructure for Telegram’s Mini App ecosystem, with TON Connect as the exclusive wallet-connection protocol for blockchain-enabled Mini Apps. Developer incentives reportedly included advertising-credit grants of up to $50,000 for qualifying developers.

Other cited developments include:

• TON Pay, a payment SDK for Mini Apps and merchants,
• Ethena’s planned USDe integration,
• Gaming and digital-collectibles partnerships involving Doodles and Pudgy Penguins,
• Developer grants, hackathons, TON Factory, and the Tolk programming language,
• AI-agent wallets,
• Tokenized-equity and ETF access through TON Wallet,
• Additional wallet, custody, staking, and derivatives integrations.

These initiatives expand the addressable market. However, partnerships and announcements are leading indicators, not proof of sustained usage, revenue, or token value capture.

DeFi depth

Gram remains materially behind major competitors in DeFi liquidity:

Historical activity data also require caution. One report stated that TON monthly active addresses reached approximately 9.9 million in September 2024, above Ethereum’s cited 5.5 million for that month, while also warning that address data can be inflated by automated activity. Solana was cited at approximately 100 million monthly active addresses and nearly $7 billion TVL during its 2024 expansion.

The implication is that Gram’s current strength is distribution and consumer access, not mature capital-market depth. To justify valuations above $25–$40 billion, TON would likely need substantial improvement in TVL, lending, derivatives, stablecoin settlement, application revenue, and liquidity.

---

Total addressable market

Gram’s theoretical TAM is unusually large because it sits at the intersection of several markets.

1. Telegram distribution

With roughly 950 million to more than 1 billion users, Telegram provides a potential audience much larger than the current active-wallet base.

Illustrative conversion rates would mean:

Even a 1% conversion could represent several times the currently reported monthly active-wallet base. However, conversion must mean recurring economic usage, not merely wallet creation.

2. Consumer payments

Peer-to-peer transfers, remittances, merchant payments, tipping, creator payouts, and digital goods could turn Telegram into a financial interface. This is potentially more durable than speculative trading because it can generate recurring activity outside crypto-market cycles.

3. Mini App commerce

Mini Apps can combine messaging, gaming, digital goods, trading, subscriptions, and payments. If they become habitual consumer applications rather than short-lived promotional campaigns, they could create significant transaction demand.

4. Stablecoin settlement

TON could compete for cross-border stablecoin transfers, particularly in markets with high mobile adoption or limited access to efficient traditional payment systems. TRON demonstrates that a blockchain can develop substantial value around stablecoin transfers even without dominating general-purpose DeFi.

5. Digital advertising and creator monetization

Advertising payments, Telegram Stars, channel payouts, and creator tools may provide recurring settlement activity. This category is particularly important because it could introduce non-speculative demand.

6. Tokenized assets and financial products

Tokenized stocks, ETFs, perpetual futures, lending, staking, and other financial products extend the TAM beyond messaging and payments into broader digital asset infrastructure.

A third-party market estimate placed the blockchain-messaging-app market at approximately $65.76 billion in 2024, potentially reaching around $1.23 trillion by 2032. Such estimates should be treated cautiously because market definitions can be broad. They describe a sector, not Gram’s obtainable revenue or token value.

---

Comparison with similar network valuations

TRON

TRON is the most relevant comparison for a payments-oriented network. Its cited market capitalization is approximately $31.5 billion, with around $5.2 billion TVL and roughly $90 billion stablecoin capitalization in cited 2026 reports.

This comparison shows both the opportunity and the challenge. Gram could potentially compete for stablecoin and cross-border-payment activity, but it would need to convert Telegram distribution into sustained settlement volume. Telegram access alone does not guarantee TRON-like monetary usage.

Solana

Solana is a more demanding benchmark. Its cited market cap is approximately $60.3 billion, with approximately $5.8 billion TVL and much deeper developer and DeFi activity. Solana’s 2024 monthly active-address figure was cited at approximately 100 million.

A Solana-like valuation for Gram would require much more than Telegram integration. It would likely require:

• Tens of millions of recurring users,
• Deep DeFi liquidity,
• Strong developer retention,
• Significant application revenue,
• Broad exchange and institutional support,
• More extensive token value capture.

BNB

BNB has a cited market capitalization near $92 billion. Its valuation benefits from exchange-related utility, broad liquidity, and a large application ecosystem. Gram could potentially achieve comparable value only if Telegram becomes an equally powerful distribution and transaction platform, with substantial recurring economic activity.

Ethereum

Ethereum remains a much higher bar, with cited market capitalization near $296.7 billion, approximately $48.8 billion TVL, and dominant settlement and collateral roles. Gram does not currently have comparable DeFi depth, fee generation, or developer maturity.

Traditional-market context

A Gram market capitalization of:

Payment networks can process trillions of dollars while their native assets capture limited value. Therefore, comparing Gram’s market cap directly with global payment volume would be misleading. The relevant question is how much of that volume requires GRAM for fees, staking, liquidity, collateral, or settlement.

---

Scenario analysis

The following scenarios are analytical frameworks, not forecasts or guarantees. They assume approximately 2.7–2.8 billion circulating GRAM. If supply expands, the same market caps would produce lower token prices.

Conservative scenario: $2–$3

This scenario represents continued ecosystem functionality without a major breakthrough. It would be meaningful appreciation from the approximately $1.39 baseline, but would remain below the historical ATH.

The conservative case is plausible if wallet growth is mostly promotional, stablecoin activity does not produce strong GRAM demand, or supply expansion offsets network growth.

Base scenario: $4–$8

This is the most balanced upside case. It assumes Gram succeeds in converting part of Telegram’s distribution advantage into habitual usage, but does not yet become a dominant general-purpose blockchain.

The upper end, near $8, approaches the former ATH. A return to $8.25 would require approximately $22–$23 billion in circulating market capitalization at current supply, which is achievable in a strong market but would require renewed liquidity and more convincing adoption data.

Optimistic scenario: $9–$15

This is the upper end of a realistic strong-cycle scenario. At approximately $10, Gram would be valued near $27–$28 billion, close to the current valuation scale of TRON. At $15, the circulating market cap would approach $42 billion, requiring a clear move into the ranks of major global Layer-1 networks.

This outcome is possible only if the network’s economic depth catches up with its distribution narrative.

Maximum realistic strong-cycle scenario: $20–$30

This range should be classified as aggressive rather than central. At $20, Gram would imply approximately $56 billion in circulating market capitalization, comparable to the current scale of Solana. At $30, it would imply approximately $83 billion, close to the current valuation of BNB.

A $30 price would therefore require Gram to become one of the most valuable consumer-oriented blockchain ecosystems, with economic activity approaching the largest Layer-1 networks. It cannot be justified by Telegram’s user count alone.

---

Derivatives and market-structure context

The derivatives data is for TON and may not map cleanly to the renamed GRAM asset. It should be treated as indicative only until ticker and exchange mappings are confirmed.

Reported derivatives readings include:

The market structure is mixed:

• Very negative funding suggests short positioning is crowded enough to create short-squeeze risk.
• Extremely low open interest indicates that the absolute amount of leverage may be too small to support a major derivatives-driven move.
• The mildly long account ratio does not confirm an aggressively bearish or bullish consensus.
• Zero reported liquidations over 30 days is not economically credible for an actively traded asset and should be treated as missing data.
• Broader crypto sentiment is bullish, but Gram-specific derivatives participation is weak.

A short-term rebound could occur if spot demand improves while funding remains deeply negative. However, this would be a tactical market-structure effect, not evidence that the long-term valuation ceiling has increased. More constructive confirmation would involve rising spot volume, gradually recovering open interest, funding normalizing toward zero, and improving on-chain activity.

---

Growth catalysts

The most important potential catalysts are:

The strongest catalysts would be usage-based rather than announcement-based. Evidence that users return regularly, merchants settle payments, creators receive revenue, and stablecoins circulate at scale would be more valuable than additional wallet-registration numbers.

---

Limiting factors and risks

1. Telegram users are not Gram users

A billion Telegram users represents distribution potential, not current token demand. The official monthly active-wallet figures near 1.8–2.2 million are dramatically smaller than Telegram’s total audience.

2. Incentive-driven activity may not persist

Games, airdrops, and tap-to-earn campaigns can produce large bursts of accounts and transactions. The relevant metrics are retained users, recurring payments, balances, fees, and application revenue.

3. Stablecoin substitution

Users may transact primarily in USDT or other stablecoins. That can benefit TON as infrastructure without creating proportional demand for GRAM unless the token is required for fees, collateral, staking, liquidity, or settlement.

4. Supply dilution

With roughly half of reported total supply not circulating, future issuance and previously unavailable balances could create sell-side pressure. Supply methodology has also produced significant historical market-cap revisions.

5. DeFi and capital-market depth

TON’s TVL and active-address data remain far below leading competitors, despite its substantial distribution narrative. Higher valuations require deeper lending, derivatives, DEX, collateral, and stablecoin ecosystems.

6. Telegram concentration risk

The network’s primary advantage is also a vulnerability. Changes in Telegram’s strategy, wallet policy, technical integration, or regulatory status could materially affect Gram adoption.

7. Legal and regulatory exposure

Pavel Durov’s arrest and legal investigation in France demonstrated that Telegram-related events can affect market sentiment and ecosystem activity. Stablecoins, tokenized securities, custodial wallets, staking, and messaging-platform payments may face different regulatory restrictions across jurisdictions.

8. Centralization and governance

Greater Telegram involvement could improve distribution and execution, but may raise concerns about validator concentration, governance independence, platform control, and censorship risk.

9. Competition

Gram competes with Ethereum Layer-2 networks, Solana, BNB Chain, TRON, Base, Sui, Aptos, and stablecoin payment systems. Developers and liquidity are not guaranteed to remain within one ecosystem.

10. Derivatives and liquidity limitations

The reported open interest is extremely low and may be incomplete. Thin derivatives participation can reduce price discovery and make rallies or selloffs less reliable.

---

What would validate the higher price scenarios?

The most useful indicators to monitor are:

A move toward $10–$15 would be more credible if active users reached the tens of millions, stablecoin liquidity reached several billion dollars, and TON developed much deeper DeFi and payment activity. A move toward $20–$30 would require evidence closer to the scale of major Layer-1 ecosystems.

---

Bottom line

Using the approximately 2.7–2.8 billion circulating-supply assumption:

The most defensible analytical ceiling is approximately $10–$15 under optimistic but plausible assumptions. The $20–$30 range belongs to an aggressive scenario requiring tens of millions of recurring users, deep stablecoin settlement, much stronger DeFi liquidity, clear GRAM value capture, and a favorable crypto market.

The former $8.25 ATH is a credible reference point, but reclaiming it would require roughly $20–$23 billion in circulating market capitalization at current supply. The decisive variable is not Telegram’s headline user count. It is the percentage of users who become persistent, economically active participants and whose activity creates sustained demand for GRAM rather than only for stablecoins or individual Mini Apps.