Toncoin Is Now Gram: The TON Network, Token Identity and Key Risks

Toncoin is the former name of the native cryptocurrency of The Open Network, or TON. As of October 16, 2026, the project's official media materials identify that coin as Gram, ticker GRAM, formerly Toncoin or TON. The network is still called TON. A current explanation must therefore separate the blockchain's name from the coin's updated branding.

That distinction has practical consequences. A familiar ticker in an older wallet, exchange listing or article is not sufficient to identify an asset. Nor does the word Gram prove that a newly promoted token is the native coin. The network, provider's asset record and official documentation must agree.

Telegram's original project and today's network are not the same legal episode

TON originated in a blockchain project developed by Telegram's founders, Pavel and Nikolai Durov. The original proposed token was also called Gram. That history is important because a name returning in current branding does not undo the outcome of the earlier offering.

On June 26, 2020, the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced a court-approved settlement concerning Telegram's unregistered token offering. Telegram and its subsidiary agreed to return more than $1.2 billion to investors and pay an $18.5 million civil penalty. That was a specific legal resolution involving the original offering, not a regulatory endorsement of today's native asset.

The network subsequently continued through an open-source ecosystem associated with the TON Foundation and independent contributors. Current TON materials present a live network with development tools and wallet integrations, rather than merely the unfinished token-sale proposal described in the 2020 proceedings.

Telegram's role became more direct again in 2026

Telegram remains a major distribution channel for TON-related applications. In May 2026, Pavel Durov said Telegram would become the network's largest validator and take a more direct role in driving its development. That is an attributed statement about Telegram's involvement, not proof that every TON application is operated by Telegram.

A larger role for a widely used messaging platform can make blockchain features easier to reach. It also creates questions about concentration, dependence on platform policies and the visibility of alternative wallets. Distribution and decentralization are different measurements, and improvement in one does not automatically settle the other.

Likewise, an application appearing inside a messaging interface is not automatically self-custodial. The relevant question is who can authorize movement of funds and how access is recovered. An account protected by a service's login system can involve different obligations from a wallet controlled by a recovery phrase.

How TON processes activity

TON is a proof-of-stake blockchain architecture designed to divide work across multiple chains. A masterchain coordinates important network information, while shardchains divide transaction processing. Dynamic sharding is intended to allow the system to adjust how work is distributed as demand changes.

Its contracts use an asynchronous message-based model. Instead of imagining one function instantly changing every related account at once, it is more helpful to picture messages being processed by separate contracts. An application may need to track several stages before the user's intended operation is complete.

This makes simplistic speed comparisons unreliable. A quick response from an interface, the processing of one message and the completion of a multi-contract operation are different milestones. Users also depend on wallet software, network access and any exchange or payment service involved.

Developers use TON-specific tools and its virtual machine rather than assuming that an Ethereum contract can be deployed unchanged. Familiar application categories do not imply identical execution rules or token standards.

What Gram pays for, and why a transfer may have several costs

The native coin supports network payments and staking. TON's fee documentation distinguishes computation from other charges, including storage and the handling or forwarding of messages. A visible fee can therefore reflect more than the execution of a single contract instruction.

Storage also matters over time. Applications that maintain state create obligations different from a one-off payment. Wallets should provide enough context for the user to understand the action being authorized rather than presenting every transaction as the same kind of transfer.

Separately, a custodial platform may apply its own withdrawal charge or minimum. That charge is not necessarily the network's underlying cost. The guide to transaction fees explains how to separate protocol fees, service fees and the amount the recipient actually receives.

Token transfers require particular care. TON supports assets issued through contracts, commonly called jettons. A jetton can use a familiar name or symbol without being the native coin, a recognized stablecoin or an asset backed by the organization it appears to represent.

Supply and staking should not be reduced to an old percentage

TON's design documents describe an initial supply of five billion native units and additional issuance for validator rewards. That initial quantity is not the same as a permanent five-billion maximum. Current supply and circulating supply must also be distinguished from coins held, committed or otherwise unavailable for ordinary trading.

The original technical papers contain assumptions and parameters from the network's design history. They should not be read as a current reward quotation. Network configuration, validator participation and fees can change, making an old fixed inflation or yield percentage a poor substitute for current operational information.

Staking itself is not a single product. Running a validator, participating through a pool and depositing with a custodian can expose users to different technical, contractual and recovery risks. A liquid staking token adds another asset and another mechanism to understand rather than removing those risks.

How to avoid confusing the name change with a new investment

Start with the asset's network identity, not a search result promising access to a renamed coin. Check that the sending and receiving services support the same native asset on the same network. An unsolicited instruction to reveal a recovery phrase is not a legitimate requirement created by a branding change.

For custodial deposits, follow the receiving provider's current instructions, including any required memo or reference. Do not assume that an address used successfully with one provider will work under another provider's procedures. A small test can help check a route, although it carries its own transaction cost and is not protection against every later problem.

The wallet guide covers the underlying custody choices. TON's current identity is clear in its official materials: the network is TON and its native coin is Gram. What remains service-specific is how quickly older names are updated, which routes are supported and what safeguards protect a particular user's funds.