The Open Network (TON) has emerged as one of the most talked-about blockchains in the crypto space, rising from a grassroots revival of Telegram’s abandoned blockchain project to a top-10 cryptocurrency by market cap. With its price climbing from $2 to $8 between 2023 and 2024, TON has captured the attention of retail traders and institutional investors alike.
But what’s behind this seemingly unstoppable momentum?
A deep dive into TON’s on-chain data — based on a detailed 2023 report by analytics firm Whiterabbit — reveals a surprising truth: at least 85.8% of TON’s total supply was mined by a tightly interconnected group of miners linked to the TON Foundation. This high concentration raises critical questions about decentralization, market liquidity, and long-term sustainability.
Let’s unpack the findings and explore what they mean for TON’s future.
The Origins of The Open Network
The Open Network began as Telegram’s ambitious blockchain initiative, originally known as the Telegram Open Network. Although Telegram officially stepped back in 2020 due to regulatory pressure from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the project didn’t die. Instead, it evolved into a community-driven ecosystem now governed by independent developers and the TON Foundation.
Key milestones in TON’s evolution:
- November 2019: Testnet2 launched by Telegram.
- July 2020: Token mining began, distributing GRAM test tokens via smart contracts.
- May 2021: Testnet2 rebranded as the mainnet; control transferred to independent developers.
- February 2023: Validators voted to freeze inactive accounts for four years — affecting ~20% of total supply.
Despite Telegram’s official withdrawal, the company maintains a close relationship with TON, integrating it deeply into its app through features like in-app games, wallets, TON DNS domains, anonymous numbers, and paid ads.
👉 Discover how leading blockchain ecosystems maintain growth and stability.
How TON Was Mined: A Short but Crucial Window
TON’s token distribution occurred primarily during a brief mining period from July 6, 2020, to August 26, 2020 — just 51 days. During this time:
- 96% of all TON tokens (4.8 billion) were distributed through "Large Givers" contracts.
- Only 2.35% came after August 2020 via "Small Givers."
- The remaining 1.65% was allocated earlier for testing purposes.
This means that nearly the entire circulating supply was minted within weeks — and not randomly across thousands of independent miners.
Instead, analysis shows that a small cluster of addresses dominated the mining activity — many of which are now known to be interlinked and tied to core members of the TON ecosystem.
On-Chain Evidence: Four Major Mining Groups Controlled 78% of Supply
Whiterabbit’s investigation identified four primary mining groups responsible for 3.9 billion TON tokens, or 78% of total issuance. These groups operated with synchronized patterns, shared infrastructure, and coordinated fund movements — suggesting centralized coordination rather than organic decentralization.
Group 1: July 6 – July 30 (22% of Supply)
- 36 addresses started mining within hours of launch.
- All stopped on July 30 at nearly the same time.
- 17 active wallets made single bulk withdrawals between October–December 2021 — often within minutes of each other.
- Funds flowed to new addresses once, then remained static.
This synchronized behavior strongly suggests a single operator or closely aligned team managing these wallets.
Group 2: July 30 – August 24 (20% of Supply)
- Took over immediately after Group 1 shut down — with only 48 seconds between final and first rewards.
- 26 new addresses launched in one night — the largest single-day activation since launch.
- Multiple wallets donated significant portions (10–100%) directly to TON Foundation addresses.
- Several participated in staking through validator pools.
The seamless handoff and immediate donation activity point to a coordinated transition, likely under the same organizational umbrella.
Group 3: July 6 – August 24 (18.8% of Supply)
- Operated in parallel with Group 1 but started later.
- Shared beneficiaries with Group 1 — funds from three addresses merged into one destination wallet.
- Exhibited identical withdrawal patterns: one-time transfers in late 2021.
Linkages via shared transaction paths confirm operational overlap with earlier groups.
Group 4: July 19 – August 24 (17.2% of Supply)
- Connected to Group 3 via intermediary address putF, a known hub for internal TON operations.
- Fund transfers linked to BDa2, another key connector used across multiple clusters.
- Sent 10 million TON each to OKX and FTX on their listing dates — matching official exchange announcements.
This group acted as a bridge between mining operations and market liquidity initiatives — further tying mining activity to ecosystem development.
Smaller Groups Reinforce Centralized Control
Beyond the big four, five additional clusters emerged in August 2020:
- Group 5 (Aug 1): Linked to BDa2 and core community figures like Oleg Illarionov and Kirill Malev (First Stage Labs).
- Group 6 (Aug 8–26): Includes F81K, which completed the final mining transactions; connected via early network interactions.
- Group 7 (Aug 18–24): Small but linked via shared addresses like LJwP and ceg_, both tied to early TON Foundation testing.
Together, these smaller groups mined an additional 7.8% of supply, bringing the total controlled by interconnected entities to 85.8%.
Validator Network Reflects Miner Concentration
Decentralization isn’t just about token distribution — it also depends on who secures the network.
At the time of analysis, 66.9% of active validators (182 out of 272) received funds directly or indirectly from these mining groups. Many were funded through intermediary addresses like BDa2, which serves as a central node connecting multiple clusters.
This indicates that not only is supply concentrated, but so is consensus power — raising concerns about governance centralization and potential attack vectors.
Why This Matters: Market Liquidity and Price Stability
With over 85% of TON supply held by a small circle, market dynamics are fundamentally shaped by their actions.
Key implications:
- Low sell pressure: Most early miners have not dumped their holdings.
- Controlled release: Strategic transfers to exchanges create artificial scarcity.
- Price resilience: Limited floating supply supports bullish momentum even amid broader market volatility.
While this has helped TON avoid sharp corrections, it also means prices may not reflect true market demand — but rather orchestrated supply management.
The Role of the TON Foundation
The TON Foundation now holds over 570 million TON donated from various mining groups. These funds are likely being used for:
- Ecosystem grants
- Exchange liquidity provisioning
- Developer incentives
- Marketing and adoption campaigns
In response to Whiterabbit’s report, the foundation stated:
“We believe transparency is essential for trust. This analysis provides valuable insight into our ecosystem’s current state and highlights steps needed to strengthen decentralization.”
They’ve also supported validator votes to freeze inactive whale wallets — an effort to reduce perceived centralization risks.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
🔹 Is TON a VC-backed coin?
While TON wasn’t initially funded by traditional VCs, its token distribution resembles VC allocation due to extreme concentration among early insiders. However, recent investments from firms like Pantera Capital add legitimate venture backing.
🔹 Can TON be truly decentralized if most tokens are held by insiders?
Full decentralization remains a work in progress. The current structure reflects early-stage control, but ongoing efforts — including token distribution programs and validator diversification — aim to shift power toward the broader community.
🔹 Why hasn’t the price crashed given centralization risks?
Market sentiment is driven by Telegram integration, growing dApp activity, and low circulating supply. As long as large holders don’t sell en masse, price stability can persist — though this creates vulnerability if confidence shifts.
🔹 Are these mining groups still active?
Many remain dormant, but some continue funding ecosystem projects and exchanges. Their occasional movements suggest they’re still monitoring and influencing market conditions.
🔹 How can I verify these claims?
All data used in the Whiterabbit report is publicly available:
You can trace transactions using explorers like Tonscan or TonAPI.
🔹 What does this mean for long-term investors?
High concentration increases risk, but also enables coordinated growth strategies. Watch for increased token distribution, staking participation, and dApp innovation as signs of healthy decentralization.
👉 Stay ahead with tools that track whale movements and on-chain activity across major blockchains.
Final Thoughts: A Centralized Start Toward Decentralized Growth?
TON’s story is unique — born from regulatory failure, reborn through community action, and powered by strategic concentration.
While the evidence clearly shows that a small coalition linked to the TON Foundation controls most of the supply, this doesn’t necessarily doom the project. Many successful ecosystems began with centralized foundations before gradually opening up governance.
The real test will come when these whales begin distributing tokens more widely — whether through staking rewards, grants, or public sales. If done transparently and fairly, TON could evolve into one of crypto’s most compelling hybrid models: centralized origins meeting decentralized aspirations.
For now, investors should proceed with eyes open — aware of both the risks and the remarkable momentum behind this Telegram-powered blockchain revolution.
Core Keywords: TON blockchain, TON Foundation, TON mining, TON token distribution, decentralized network, cryptocurrency price stability, on-chain analysis