Why Toncoin Reverted to "Gram"
Published 6/16/2026, 3:45:55 AM
Toncoin has not reverted to the name Gram. The token remains named Toncoin as of mid-2026. However, the naming history explains why this question arises.
The Original Gram (2018)
The Telegram Open Network (TON), founded by Pavel and Nikolai Durov, originally named its native token Gram in the 2018 whitepaper. Telegram conducted one of the largest token sales in crypto history, raising approximately $1.7 billion across two private SAFT rounds from 171 investors receiving 2.9 billion Grams.
SEC Legal Battle and Abandonment (2019–2020)
In October 2019, the SEC filed an emergency action halting the Gram offering, classifying it as an unregistered securities sale. By June 2020, Telegram settled with the SEC—returning $1.2 billion to investors, paying $18.5 million in civil penalties, and officially abandoning the TON project while releasing the codebase as open-source.
Community Revival and Toncoin Birth (2020–2021)
Independent developers forked the open-source code and continued development. The project was renamed from "Telegram Open Network" to "The Open Network" (TON), and the token was renamed from Gram to Toncoin in May 2021 to deliberately distance itself from the SEC litigation and Telegram associations. The TON Foundation was established in Switzerland as a non-profit governing body, and the mainnet launched successfully.
Why the Confusion About a "Reversion"?
The narrative of a "reversion to Gram" may stem from community nostalgia or speculation about future rebranding. Durov has stated that "Gram was the original name of TON's currency in the first white paper," and separating token identity (Gram) from blockchain identity (TON) aligns with how ETH relates to Ethereum or SOL to Solana. However, no official governance vote or rebrand to Gram has occurred as of mid-2026.
What remains open: Whether the TON community will formally propose a rename to Gram via governance vote, and if so, what the market and regulatory response might be given the original SEC litigation.
Note: No source URLs were provided in the research output, so citations are omitted per the data-availability rules.