Telegram Tokens Are Still Considered Risky Despite Defending The Case

The Telegram tokens and the Open Network, in general, are under heavy pressure from the Securities Exchange Commission for allegedly conducting an unregistered security sale as we previously read in the altcoin news.

Even if Telegram manages to defend the case, the telegram tokens are still considered as risky. The platform still remains raw since many of the parts of the technological stack are under development but a decision to ‘’roll its own crypto’’ still doest spike confidence in timely delivery. The SEC’s move to stop TON from issuing the tokens was considered as a positive factor by a few investors meaning that it can give the project some more time to develop something more than just a viable product that can improve the public sentiment for the mainnet launch, of course, if the project settles the case with the SEC.

Regardless of the TON dispute, there will be a lot of resources that can be used for further development of the platform. This is mainly important as the network is already attracting some large expenses. According to the SEC’s filing, ‘’ as of January 31, 2019 TON had used approximately $281 million of the $1.7 billion raised to support the development of messenger and the TON blockchain.’’

Telegram’s estimates show that there could be expenses of more than $520 million between 2019 and 2021 on the messenger alone. This kind of spending raises a lot of questions on the usage of the funds mainly because the platform is still not completed. Telegram plans to have an initial supply of 5 billion GRMs releasing to investors in multiple batches and the project also aims for yearly supply inflation of 2%.

Telegram prohibited most of the investors from reselling their allocation under the penalty of shutting down the purchase contract so the buyers and sellers surpassed this by signing delayed delivery contracts that are fulfilled once when the network is launched. If the tokens get listed for trading, the lower valuation bound seems to be more likely. The initial investor appears to be focused on selling by combining with negative sentiment and high costs for some investors that could result in panic selling.