TON reaching a $3 valuation seems more like a technological victory and more like viewing a tightrope walker over the Grand Canyon without a safety net. We badly want to believe in Telegram’s vision of creating a robust crypto ecosystem. In doing so, have we not lost sight of the actual dangers that may be hiding just below the surface? This isn't just about charts and trading volumes; it's about real people, their savings, and the future of online interaction.

Is Telegram Protecting Its Users?

Market news blares all around you with breakouts, pullbacks, and consolidation patterns. Volume this, support zone that. What of the single mother in Venezuela. She initially uses Telegram to communicate with her family back home, but falls into a TON-based investment scam that promises outrageous returns. What safeguards are really in place? Of course, CoinDesk Analytics, our AI-powered tool, does the math and editors check the work. But who is looking out for the typical user who doesn’t have a clue what this is.

It’s hard not to let the thrill of a hot new asset go to one’s head. I mean, green candles—who doesn’t love that? The crypto world is riddled with scams and rug pulls. Telegram, popular though it may be, has long been a refuge for the worst of the dark web. Making the platform a home for an unregulated cryptocurrency seems closer to throwing gasoline on the fire.

Consider this: Telegram built its reputation on privacy. Adding a monetary incentive such as TON quickly turns this into a giant honeypot of user information. Now, your messages, your friends lists, and your banking activities are all mixed together. Are we exchanging privacy for the promise of personal economic liberation? That’s a trade I’m not convinced most people know they’re making or would make if they realized what was at stake.

Echoes of the ICO Boom?

Remember the ICO boom of 2017? It seemed like everyone was launching a token and promising to upend everything from dog walking to space travel. Most of those projects are now dust. But TON, if only for its integration into one of the world’s largest messaging platforms, has a monumental built-in advantage. Yet that benefit comes with tremendous responsibility.

The very high trading volumes underpinning this breakout are being celebrated as the capacity of strength. By this measure, high trading volumes are a sign of manipulation. Usually this implies that whales are behind the scenes, making the demand seem scarce to inflate the price themselves. Are these volumes organic, case-made, driven by real user adoption, or are they just hype/speculation at this point?

TON rose only 1.5% in the past 24 hours, lagging the CoinDesk 20 index of generally large crypto assets, which was up 3.6%. That's a subtle red flag. It does imply that even as the overall crypto market is doing well, TON isn’t keeping pace with the overall market’s success. Why? Is it a lack of confidence? Could it be an indication that the hype is beginning to wear off?

These are some of the reasons why I see strong parallels between TON and Facebook’s Libra (now Diem) project. Both were noble efforts to incorporate cryptocurrency into giant social networks. We all know how Libra got hit with a firestorm of regulatory backlash and crashed and burned. TON may be in for those same rough waters down the road. Governments around the world are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of Big Tech on our lives and the risks posed by unregulated crypto assets.

What Happens When the Music Stops?

How will the investors that purchased TON close to its all-time high fare once the correction that is sure to come eventually arrives? Will Telegram step in to protect them? What is the recourse going to be for those Americans who lose their savings as a result?

This goes far beyond the price of TON. It’s not just about the convenience of making finance a part of our everyday vocabulary. It concerns the addictive nature, the gambling aspect, and the financial predatory exploitation. It’s far less about these petty details than the ongoing erosion of trust in a platform that hundreds of millions count on for timely communication and information.

The potential benefits of decentralized finance are exciting, but so are the dangers. These are the kinds of questions we should be asking of Telegram. Are they doing enough to educate their users about these risks and prevent misuse? Are they being transparent about the TON snake oil? How are they inserting protections so as not to abuse and exploit?

The ascent of TON is an interesting, if still problematic, experiment. It might just change the way we think about money online. Or maybe it’s just a ticking time bomb. The main thing is to engage with it with caution, with disbelief and skepticism and criticism, and with a heaping helping of fear. Because when it comes to our tax dollars, a healthy dose of fear is exactly what we need.