Telegram writes to investors: the delay in the hearing is a "positive step"

In a letter to investors, Telegram encouraged investors to consider the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s postponement of its hearing to February next year as a "positive step."


The letter issued on October 19th assured investors that after the rescheduling, the hearing will be held from February 18th to 19th. This is good news, but the letter insists that before this, the company will not Release the Gram token.

“Telegram believes that this progress is a positive step that can be quickly resolved through the court system, and we and our consultants will use this time to ensure that Telegram expresses our experience as much as possible at the February hearing. Stand and get as much support as possible."

Telegram's main point is that the Gram token it issued is not a security and therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of the SEC. The Telegram team wrote in the letter that they believed that the February hearing would give a more satisfactory answer than the hearing on October 24.

“The February hearing was different from the previous hearing scheduled for October 24th, because at the February hearing, Telegram expected to ask the court to rule on the core argument that 'Gram is not a securities'. The hearing on October 24 will only consider whether it should be forced to postpone (the release of Gram) without finalizing the core issue."

This letter is just the latest development in a wheel battle between the SEC and Telegram around the Telegram Open Network and its related Gram tokens. On October 11, the SEC took urgent action against the tokens issued by Telegram.

The SEC determined that the Gram they sold in the United States was unregistered and therefore illegal. Telegram filed a document on October 16 that refuted the SEC's allegations and criticized the agency for not taking action on it in the past 18 months. In the 18 months, they should have discovered that TON is about to launch. However, it was only recently that I applied for an "emergency" injunction.