Telegram and its TON project were recently smashed with a surprise move from the SEC just before they were to launch. The regulatory body determined that the company would need to be registered with them to issue its GRAM tokens.
Following the dust settling on this postponement of the launch, there has been a bit of a waiting period as the SEC and Telegram prepare to face off in a number of hearings in the coming months. However, the interesting point of division is how much this failure falls on the messaging app, Telegram.
Telegram is, of course, the major company behind TON. However, that fact was only recently revealed when the first mention of TON and its native GRAM tokens appeared on Telegram’s official website just before it was supposed to go live.
However, if Telegram was trying to distance itself from TON and keep the two businesses separate, they may well be forced to get into the same room as a document signed by District Judge P. Kevin Castel at the New York Southern District Court earlier this week, said Telegram’s founder and CEO Pavel Durov should testify in the US Securities Exchange Commission‘s (SEC) case.
This also draws similarities to another major cryptocurrency project that a big company tried to launch recently, that of Facebook and its Libra cryptocurrency. Libra has faced a number of regulatory challenges since it was proposed earlier this year, and this has led to a few hearings in the Senate.
In fact, the most recent hearing about Libra saw Mark Zuckerberg called in front of the Senate to answer questions on the cryptocurrency project despite the head of the subsidiary, known as Calibra, being David Marcus.
In the case of Telegram and TON, there could well be a coming together of the two sides of the business to try and ensure it meets regulatory muster, but it will also be adding to the precedent that the heads of these major firms need to be held responsible.
It would probably also be in the best interest of TON, and thus Telegram, if Durov does provide the answers that the regulators need. As it stands, TON and the SEC are in disagreement as to their positions following this intervention, but it is something that can be resolved.
More so, TON investors approved the delay, refusing an offer of a partial refund, meaning that there is time and scope to see this launched in the near future.