The information provided on EL7.AI is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
The information provided on EL7.AI is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
As blockchain projects strive to establish monetary credibility, Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back has raised concerns regarding the consistency of GRAM token issuance and its supply model following the TON rebrand. According to reports, Back publicly questioned the monetary integrity and supply design of the token, arguing that the current framework lacks necessary transparency. These criticisms center on the flexible, governance-based supply model, which Back suggests contrasts sharply with fixed monetary principles.
These doubts emerge in a broader context where tokens linked to social media platforms face persistent regulatory and technical scrutiny, following Telegram's historical challenges with the SEC. In comparison to major cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin remains the benchmark for fixed supply at 21 million units, while projects like TON and GRAM utilize variable burn and issuance mechanisms. Per market data, assets lacking a hard supply cap often face valuation pressure regarding long-term scarcity when compared to assets with rigid monetary policies.
Sign in to access this content
Sign InTraders should monitor GRAM liquidity levels and the TON community's response to these technical critiques, especially as the NAB Business Confidence index stood at -14 as of June 9, 2026, indicating a cautious global market sentiment. Markets are also processing US CPI data, which hit 4.2% annually as of June 10, 2026, as macro trends continue to dictate risk appetite in the crypto sector. Future clarity from GRAM developers regarding supply mechanics will be a key catalyst to watch.