Pavel Durov's Telegram Faces a Delicate Balance: Soaring Revenue vs. Cryptocurrency Volatility Exposure

Telegram’s financial trajectory in 2025 reveals a compelling contradiction: the messaging platform achieved record revenue growth by betting heavily on cryptocurrency integration, yet simultaneously faces extraordinary losses from the very asset class powering its growth. Founder Pavel Durov has positioned Telegram as a tech-meets-crypto hybrid, unlocking substantial revenue streams through blockchain partnerships, but this strategic choice exposes the company to digital asset market swings—a reality that could reshape how traditional tech companies value crypto integration ahead of potential public market debuts.

The Revenue Engine Powered by Crypto: Growth Story’s Hidden Dependency

Telegram’s first-half 2025 results paint a picture of explosive expansion. According to Financial Times reporting, the platform’s revenue surged 65% year-on-year to $870 million, translating to nearly $400 million in operating profit—impressive metrics that typically signal a thriving business. Breaking down the numbers, core services contributed: $125 million from advertising (5% growth), $223 million from premium subscriptions (88% surge), but here’s the inflection point—an estimated $300 million flowed from the exclusive TON blockchain partnership, where TON became the sole infrastructure layer for Telegram’s mini-program ecosystem.

The trajectory builds on 2024’s momentum, when Telegram achieved its first-ever annual profit of $540 million on $1.4 billion revenue—more than quadrupling 2023’s $343 million. Of that $1.4 billion, roughly 50% originated from “partnerships and ecosystem” categories, a euphemism for cryptocurrency-adjacent revenue.

Yet this growth narrative encounters a critical pivot: despite nearly $400 million in operating profit during H1 2025, Telegram reported a net loss of $222 million. The culprit wasn’t operational misstep—it was the forced revaluation of Telegram’s TON token holdings as the cryptocurrency collapsed over 73% from peak levels. As of late January 2026, TON trades at $1.52, reflecting the sustained pressure that triggered this mark-to-market loss.

The $450 Million Token Question: Decentralization Strategy or Liquidity Crisis?

The revelation that Telegram offloaded over $450 million in TON tokens—exceeding 10% of the cryptocurrency’s current market capitalization—ignited immediate speculation about the company’s true intentions. Community members questioned whether Pavel Durov was orchestrating a “cash-out,” converting accumulated digital assets into fiat capital while the market remained volatile.

Pavel Durov’s response reframed the narrative as strategic ecosystem management rather than opportunistic selling. Through statements and official communications, Durov emphasized that all TON tokens sold by Telegram were structured with four-year lock-up schedules, preventing immediate secondary market pressure. The primary buyers were long-term institutional holders like TONX (a US-listed company focused exclusively on TON ecosystem investments), committed to holding and staking—not speculative trading.

Crucially, Pavel Durov articulated a decentralization thesis that extends beyond financial transactions. He publicly committed in 2024 to capping Telegram’s TON holdings at no more than 10% of total supply, viewing Telegram’s previous dominance as a potential centralization risk. When holdings exceeded this threshold, the protocol required asset restructuring through strategic sales at modest market discounts, paired with vesting schedules that ensured ecosystem stability.

This interpretation positions the $450 million sale as token rebalancing aligned with governance principles—similar to how portfolio managers rebalance equity allocations. The sales fund Telegram’s development operations while preventing a single entity (Telegram) from potentially manipulating a decentralized network. Whether the market accepts this framing remains uncertain, especially as TON continues suppressed pricing throughout 2026.

IPO Ambitions: Convertible Bonds, Debt Timelines, and Regulatory Headwinds

Telegram’s capital-raising trajectory signals serious IPO preparation. Since 2021, the company has accumulated over $1 billion in bond debt; in 2025 it issued an additional $1.7 billion in convertible instruments attracting participation from major institutions including BlackRock and Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Company.

The convertible bond structure itself reveals the IPO timing pressure. If Telegram lists before 2030, bondholders gain the right to convert debt into equity at approximately 80% of the IPO price—effectively a 20% discount. For investors, this represents a leveraged bet on successful public market execution and subsequent share appreciation. For Telegram, it creates urgency: missing an IPO window leaves the company servicing long-term debt interest expenses rather than transitioning to equity financing.

Currently, Telegram has resolved most near-term debt obligations through 2025 refinancing. Pavel Durov confirmed that the company successfully redeemed or restructured older bonds maturing in 2026, with the primary remaining debt consisting of 2030-maturity convertible instruments. This creates a reasonably comfortable runway, though market expectations suggest a 2026-2027 IPO launch would align with investor conversion incentives and Pavel Durov’s strategic vision.

However, the path forward faces multiple obstacles. First, regulatory uncertainty: France’s ongoing legal proceedings against Pavel Durov cast shadows over listing timelines, with Telegram acknowledging to investors that judicial outcomes could materially affect IPO scheduling. Second, profitability proof: with 1 billion monthly active users but business model heavily reliant on nascent cryptocurrency partnerships, Telegram must demonstrate that its revenue sources can sustain profitable growth independent of TON ecosystem volatility.

Third, and perhaps most fundamental, the company must convince institutional investors that Telegram’s concentrated ownership structure—Pavel Durov remains the sole shareholder with absolute control—can coexist with public market governance expectations. Durov’s historical product philosophy emphasizes “delayed gratification,” prioritizing long-term user engagement over short-term shareholder returns. This philosophical alignment may actually strengthen Telegram’s narrative for investors seeking companies with founder-led, long-term vision, yet it introduces governance complexity that public market scrutiny will examine rigorously.

The Broader Implication: Crypto Integration as Corporate Risk Factor

Telegram’s situation establishes a precedent for how major technology platforms navigate cryptocurrency integration. The company simultaneously achieved record revenue and catastrophic bottom-line results—a scenario few traditional tech companies face. This crypto-specific dynamic—where operational excellence yields operating profit, but balance sheet volatility overwhelms net income—represents a new risk class for potential public market investors evaluating similar tech-plus-crypto hybrids.

For Pavel Durov and Telegram, the path forward requires threading multiple needles: maintaining ecosystem innovation and revenue growth from TON partnerships, managing balance sheet exposure to cryptocurrency price fluctuations, navigating regulatory complexities across jurisdictions, and ultimately proving to public market investors that Telegram’s business model can deliver sustainable, crypto-independent profitability. The next 12-18 months will determine whether this balancing act succeeds or whether Telegram’s IPO ambitions must be postponed until cryptocurrency market conditions stabilize and regulatory frameworks mature.