Details of the Telegram-based blockchain platform are known only from unofficial sources. Will the blocking of the messenger in Russia help the exit of the project at the ICO?
Now is a very good time for the ICO TON blockchain project, since Bitcoin has obvious problems with scaling and transaction time - this increases interest in altcoins. But there are several problems, the solution of which will determine whether the project of the Durov brothers will take off.
Telegram traffic is 200 million monthly users, according to the company. Some experts believe that the blocking scandal will only increase their number. That is, the brothers potentially have a very large audience by the standards of the projects. Plus, the TON (Gram) development team itself is already well known in the world, they have experience in the IT industry, cryptography and many successful projects.
It is noteworthy that a narrow circle of large investors believe in the Telegram blockchain project, but the rest, apparently, no. In key cryptocurrency forums such as Reddit, the potential ICO Telegram has never caused a stir. Even after 13 February 2018 of the year, representatives of Telegram filed form S on the attraction of Telegram Group Inc. $ 850 million by the SEC, the members of the forum discussed the details that we are not talking about the classic ICO and the launch of cryptocurrency. (TON is really positioned not just as a new cryptocurrency network, but as a blockchain platform supporting marketplace for tangible and intangible goods.)
One of the stated advantages of TON is the solution to the problem of scaling: now, with the growth of the bitcoin cryptocurrency network, the transaction time increases. Many altcoin developers claim that they have found a solution to the problem. But in fact, no one has succeeded yet. In my opinion, the solution of Telegram, namely blockchain from blockchains, is also nothing new. In fact, it already exists. If we consider the ecosystem of key cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin, then between them already in test mode, you can make an exchange directly (atomic swaps). Many teams of programmers around the world have been working on building bridges between blockchains of different cryptocurrencies for a long time.
The disadvantage of the Telegram project seems to me to be an inflationary emission model (2% per annum). In my experience, users prefer cryptocurrencies with limited emissions. And this is understandable. Bitcoin was launched in early January 2009, that is, at a time when central banks around the world were experiencing a global financial crisis and turned on their printing presses. Bitcoin has become an alternative currency, which does not have a central bank and there is a predetermined limited issue in 21 million digital coins. In other words, people were offered a currency that cannot be printed indefinitely. The inflationary model will remind users of classic fiat money.
Closing blocks by Proof of stake, which Telegram is going to use, is already used by the creators of altcoins, but it still finds very little support among existing cryptocurrencies. Currently, most of the leading networks work on Proof-of-Work. Of course, no one doubts that Proof-of-Stake has great potential, but most likely, the cryptocurrency ecosystem is not yet ready for a complete transition from PoW to PoS. For example, we understand that passenger drones have a very great future and in 30-50 years all people are likely to use them. But this does not mean that people will abandon their classic cars if we start selling flying cars today. Therefore, the question arises: is it worth it to offer cryptocurrency on PoS right now? In my opinion, it is too early.
And now the most important thing is that at the moment there is no official information that Telegram representatives will conduct a classic ICO, launch a cryptocurrency, etc. All these assumptions about an ICO of the Gram cryptocurrency are based on unconfirmed data circulating in the media and on the Internet have been verified). That is, these are just assumptions that Telegram representatives may launch a cryptocurrency. Of course, Pavel Durov's team may be developing a certain project based on blockchain technologies, but we are interested in how it will differ from existing cryptocurrency networks.
Will there be a public ICO? After all, the demand for tokens could show how great interest in the project is among the broad masses of users. So far, the filing by the founders of Telegram Form D in the SEC (The United States Securities and Exchange Commission) during the previous two rounds on raising capital suggests that there is no talk of a public ICO. I think this will reduce the interest in the project from cryptocurrency activists. The crypto community is not interested in centralized projects, because it contradicts the key logic of the emergence and existence of cryptocurrencies: from centralization to decentralization. Even if the project then becomes public, it will still remain centralized.
We know Ripple from the successful centralized crackpoints - it is in the top 5 cryptocurrency. But the cryptocurrency community itself is skeptical about Ripple. It is obvious that the interests of large banks or influential representatives of the financial system are behind this cryptocurrency. Therefore, Ripple is a tool by which large banks will fight cryptocurrency to maintain their dominance in the financial sector.
At the same time, from the point of view of the investor, I believe that it is possible to include Ripple in my portfolio, because the struggle between cryptocurrency and banks for dominance in the financial sphere will continue for a very long time. And the release of the blockchain project of the Durov brothers will be only one of the rounds in it.