The buzz around TON NFTs is deafening. Telegram “gifts” 8 are hitting record highs in popularity. On some days, their transaction volumes even surpass Solana and Ethereum combined – this is something that you really can’t miss. Pavel Durov himself is touting TON's success. Hold on a second. Are we really experiencing a decentralized revolution, or are we just being smartly guided into a golden handcuff?
Decentralization? Or Telegram's Walled Garden?
Here's the uncomfortable truth: Much of this NFT activity is happening within Telegram. Telegram “stars” – essentially, as we’ve covered, Telegram’s currency – are used for in-market purchases. TONNEL, one of the largest such marketplaces, is off-chain. You’re still playing in Telegram’s garden, and Telegram is very much the one holding all the cards.
Think about it. We were told decentralization would free us from the whims of Washington DC’s centralized political control. It should tell you that ownership means having control and agency over your assets—not some large corporation. If you plan to use your NFTs mostly with Telegram’s currency, you’re putting all your eggs in their basket. Which begs the question, what kind of ownership do you really own.
Imagine the rug gets pulled. What happens when imagine Telegram changes its policies, and de-platforms your favorite NFT project, or simply decides TON isn’t profitable any longer. Where does that leave you? Exactly.
This isn't just hypothetical fear-mongering. It’s a simple, yet profound question that lies at the heart of Web3’s direction in the coming years. Are we really creating a better decentralized ecosystem? Or are we simply recreating the new centralized power structures we’ve decided to call them? It would be like trading a king for a president, then making that president a dictator.
Stars, Celebrities, and Serious Risks
On the surface, the inclusion of celebrity influencers like Snoop Dogg and Luca Netz is a positive development. It brings attention and legitimacy, right? It also brings with it an element of hype and speculation that can be extremely toxic, particularly to newcomers.
The use of "stars" as currency? It’s a bit like those pizza Hut Q coins from the early 2000s. It takes away agency and control, and creates a delightful little system where Telegram makes money off of each transaction. It is a complete rejection of the peer-to-peer, permissionless ethos of Bitcoin and Ethereum.
As someone deeply passionate about mentoring young entrepreneurs, I have to ask: Are we setting them up for success, or are we leading them down a potentially risky path? For them, that's where I get angry.
Consider these alternatives. Just take a look at projects such as Cardano’s NFT ecosystem, or Tezos — blockchains that are entirely operating on decentralized infrastructure. The connective tissue that holds these novel platforms together is their focus on community governance, open-source development, and true ownership.
| Feature | TON (via Telegram) | Cardano/Tezos |
|---|---|---|
| Currency | Telegram "Stars" | Native Cryptocurrency |
| Marketplace | Primarily Off-Chain | On-Chain |
| Governance | Telegram Controlled | Community Governed |
| Centralization | High | Low |
Further underscoring the artificiality of this market is the “cooling-off period” creating price discrepancies. The price you see on an off-chain secondary market may not be an accurate representation of the true value on the chain. It’s a recipe for a lot of confusion and an eventual exploitation.
Practical Use: A Trojan Horse?
The case that Telegram’s new “gifts” feature and the MapleStory Chain game are somehow moving NFTs towards more real-world applications is a strong one. No doubt about it, NFTs should get out of the speculative JPEG business. Is this the best approach to take? Is the trade-off of giving up decentralization in order to see a faster adoption of the technology worth it?
Think about it. If the dominant use case for NFTs is on a centralized marketplace, ID, or game, then are these actually NFTs? Would you believe it though, if we told you they are merely digital collectibles with a new name?
The increasing transaction volume is remarkable, but it’s important to note what that volume actually represents. Is it sustainable and organic growth based on true user interest, or is it all being supported by nefarious bots and artificial market creation? We need transparency.
Here's my call to action: Demand greater transparency and decentralization from TON and Telegram. Ask tough questions. Don't blindly follow the hype. Do your own research.
If you’re an entrepreneur looking to build on TON, proceed with caution and do your own cost-benefit analysis. Explore truly decentralized alternatives. So don’t take Telegram’s shiny new toy – their huge user base – at face value and overlook the pitfalls.
After all, the true success of NFTs lies in how they can be used to empower individuals and create a genuinely decentralized ecosystem. TON's gamble is whether it can achieve this within Telegram's walls, or whether it will ultimately prove to be a centralized trap. The future, and the fate of all our communities, is in our hands.
