How Pavel Durov Navigates Telegram's Crypto Paradox: Revenue Growth, Asset Losses, and IPO Strategy

Pavel Durov faces a peculiar challenge as Telegram’s sole shareholder: the messaging platform is generating record revenue while simultaneously grappling with significant accounting losses—a contradiction rooted in its deep entanglement with the TON cryptocurrency ecosystem. The latest investor disclosures reveal a company riding the wave of digital asset integration while remaining vulnerable to crypto market volatility, a balancing act that will define both Durov’s personal net worth and Telegram’s path to a public listing.

Telegram’s Surging Revenue vs. Pavel Durov’s Net Worth Challenge

Telegram reported impressive financial metrics for the first half of 2025, with revenue climbing 65% year-on-year to $870 million, coupled with nearly $400 million in operating profit. This expansion was fueled by three main channels: premium subscriptions (up 88% to $223 million), advertising (growing 5% to $125 million), and most significantly, an exclusive partnership with the TON blockchain that generated approximately $300 million—nearly one-third of total revenue.

Yet despite these gains, Telegram posted a staggering accounting loss of $222 million. The culprit: revaluation of its TON token holdings in response to the broader cryptocurrency market downturn. Throughout 2025, TON’s price deteriorated sharply, falling more than 73% from earlier peaks. While such mark-to-market losses don’t reflect cash outflow, they represent a substantial erosion of Telegram’s asset base—and directly impact the personal wealth of Pavel Durov, who maintains absolute control over the company as its sole shareholder.

The numbers underscore a broader pattern. In 2024, Telegram achieved $540 million in annual profit against $1.4 billion in revenue, with roughly half derived from cryptocurrency-related “partnerships and ecosystem” arrangements. The company has become structurally dependent on digital assets for growth, making each price swing in TON a material event for both corporate financials and Durov’s net worth calculations.

The $450 Million Token Strategy: Pavel Durov’s Vision for TON Decentralization

The most controversial move came via Telegram’s sale of over $450 million in TON tokens—a transaction that drew skepticism from the community about potential “cashing out.” Pavel Durov and his management team moved swiftly to reframe the narrative. According to Manuel Stotz, Chairman of TON treasury company TONX, all tokens sold by Telegram locked up over a four-year vesting schedule, preventing immediate market dump risk. The primary buyers were long-term investors like TONX itself, explicitly committed to strategic holding rather than speculative trading.

Durov framed the sale not as profit-taking but as a critical governance move. He has long articulated a commitment to capping Telegram’s TON holdings at no more than 10% of total supply, a self-imposed cap designed to combat concentration risk and align with the project’s decentralization ethos. When holdings exceed this threshold, Durov stated the company would systematically sell to long-term investors at modest discounts to market price, bundled with lock-up periods to safeguard ecosystem stability.

The approach reveals Pavel Durov’s strategic thinking: by limiting Telegram’s influence over TON, he paradoxically strengthens both the blockchain project and Telegram’s long-term optionality. Excess token holdings, if hoarded, could trigger accusations of market manipulation and undermine the credibility of Telegram’s mini-program ecosystem—the very feature driving hundreds of millions in annual revenue. By distributing tokens to institutional investors with lock-up commitments, Durov creates a coalition of large stakeholders invested in TON’s success, reducing single-entity dominance risk.

The flip side is unavoidable: as TON prices languish, so does the paper value of Telegram’s remaining holdings, directly depressing the personal net worth of Pavel Durov. This creates an asymmetric incentive structure where Durov absorbs the downside of cryptocurrency volatility while betting on long-term ecosystem appreciation. It’s a high-wire act requiring conviction in TON’s fundamentals.

Betting on an IPO: Pavel Durov’s Path to Converting Debt and Wealth

Telegram’s IPO prospects hinge on resolving its debt structure while proving sustainable profitability. Since 2021, the company has raised over $1 billion through convertible bonds; in 2025 alone, it issued another $1.7 billion, attracting heavyweight investors including BlackRock and Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala. These aren’t traditional loans—they’re structured as “convertible debt” with a critical feature: an IPO conversion clause allowing bondholders to swap debt for equity at approximately 80% of the eventual IPO price, effectively a 20% discount bet on a successful public offering.

For Pavel Durov, this structure presents both opportunity and pressure. If Telegram achieves a high-valuation IPO in the near term (market expectations center on 2026-2027), equity conversion will simultaneously unlock substantial wealth for Durov as the sole shareholder. However, if no IPO materializes before the 2030 maturity of the current bond tranche, Telegram faces years of interest obligations on approximately $1.7 billion in debt—a drag on profitability and potentially a constraint on Durov’s operational flexibility.

The timeline is tightening. Telegram has largely retired its earlier 2021 bonds through a 2025 debt swap, leaving the 2030 convertible issue as its primary obligation. This provides a window, but not an infinite one. Market participants increasingly view 2026-2027 as the critical IPO window; delaying beyond this risks forcing Telegram into a prolonged debt service phase where investor returns depend on cash distributions rather than equity upside.

Pavel Durov has maintained absolute control throughout this process, explicitly retaining sole shareholder status and excluding creditors from governance. This is highly unusual for a debt-heavy company and speaks to both his leverage with investors and his determination to preserve strategic autonomy. While bondholders can convert to equity upon IPO, until that moment arrives, Durov remains the ultimate decision-maker on everything from token distribution strategy to mini-program ecosystem expansion.

Yet external pressures loom. French legal proceedings against Pavel Durov for alleged violations related to content moderation and law enforcement cooperation represent an ongoing wildcard that could complicate an IPO timeline or valuation. Telegram has acknowledged to investors that this investigation poses material uncertainty, potentially delaying a public offering or forcing unfavorable conditions.

The Crypto-Dependent Future

Telegram’s path forward remains inextricably bound to the health of the TON ecosystem and the broader cryptocurrency market. Its $870 million in H1 2025 revenue demonstrates the commercial viability of integrating blockchain features into consumer applications; simultaneously, the $222 million accounting loss illustrates the cost of that strategy when digital asset prices retreat.

For Pavel Durov personally, this duality is especially acute. As sole shareholder, his net worth is entirely dependent on Telegram’s valuation and the company’s ability to navigate between maintaining TON ecosystem vibrancy and managing the financial volatility that comes with it. An IPO would unlock substantial wealth by converting illiquid equity into public market pricing; conversely, a prolonged delay or failed attempt at a 2026-2027 listing could keep that wealth locked in illiquid form while crypto headwinds persist.

Durov’s decisions around token distribution, debt management, and IPO timing will collectively determine whether Telegram emerges from this crypto paradox stronger—with diversified revenue, strategic partners, and substantial personal wealth for its founder—or becomes a cautionary tale about the risks of tying corporate fortune too tightly to a single blockchain. For now, the platform’s growth metrics suggest the former path remains plausible, even if execution remains uncertain.