3 ms·

Just more signs were at the end of a business cycle. Hopefully everyone is prepared for the eventual downturn but they never are. What about Telegram explains

Just more signs were at the end of a business cycle. Hopefully everyone is prepared for the eventual downturn but they never are. What about Telegram explains needing to raise $1B?

snissn 9y ago
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whatsapp-best-facebook-purchase-ever.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats... https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/whatsapp-vs-telegram-encryption-battle/ https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/whatsapp-vs-telegram-encrypt...
- daveguy 9y ago
  That explains why telegram might be worth over $1 billion one day (or even today). It still doesn't explain why telegram needs $1 billion. It also doesn't explain how any of the value of telegram is imparted to the coin itself. Just because a coin is associated with a company doesn't make it as valuable as the company.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    ssshhh, that kind of talk is how you pop the bubble before the people who know this can cash out.
- zanny 9y ago
  Except Telegram is not pervasive in emerging markets like Whatsapp was, and history has demonstrated that users are very fickle with messaging apps - they aren't keeping an essential history like in social media that they cannot easily export or take with them, they are used for moment to moment conversations that are discardable, just like the apps that host them. Even then, all that argues for is the value in buying Telegram, not in giving them more money. What the hell does an already established and functioning group chat / voice calling / semi-encrypted phone and electron desktop app need in 2018? Whatsapp was spending hundreds of millions just to acquire users with no monetization strategy for the sake of having users, same with Telegram. I highly doubt Facebook can get any reasonable conversion ratio from Whatsapp user to Facebook regular that already wouldn't happen on its own. Having an audience is worth something, but it is not worth billions unless you are actually getting substantial value from that audience consistently.
rebuilder 9y ago
I haven't read much at all about the particulars as far as Telegrams ICO goes. Generally, though, I'd point out that the total sum invested in an ICO doesn't necessarily equal the sum available to the company issuing the coin. Usually, as I understand it, the ICO issuer will hold some of the coins, and sell some of them, and potentially more will be minted in accordance to the issuance schedule of the coin in question. So in an ICO, the initial sum of tokens might be, e.g. 1,000,000 coins, with the issuer keeping, say, 300,000 coins and selling the rest. If buyers invest USD 1,000,000,000 as in this case, then very theoretically, the issuer now holds USD 300,000,000 worth of the tokens they issued. In practice, to use those funds for operational expenses (or drugs and prostitutes, as the suspicion tends to be), they need to sell the tokens on the open market, and are likely to get much less than the "nominal" value if they sell large amounts. Again, I have no knowledge of what the particulars of Telegram's ICO are, just pointing out that they probably haven't raised USD 1B in operational funds.
- atomical 9y ago
  > I'd point out that the total sum invested in an ICO doesn't necessarily equal the sum available to the company issuing the coin. That's exactly what it means. Circulating supply is a different story though based on lock up. > If buyers invest USD 1,000,000,000 as in this case, then very theoretically, the issuer now holds USD 300,000,000 worth of the tokens they issued. If the buyer sends $1bn directly to Telegram for any amount of coins then Telegram now has $1bn in the bank.
pjc50 9y ago
Other way round: there is a huge amount of dumb money raining down in the cryptocurrency space, and Telegram have decided to put out a bucket to catch some. They're already some way ahead of the average ICO in having an actual product, a management team whose names are known and not living in non-extraditeable countries, and so on.

Just more signs were at the end of a business cycle. Hopefully everyone is prepared for the eventual downturn but they never are. What about Telegram explains needing to raise $1B?

snissn 9y ago

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whatsapp-best-facebook-purchase-ever.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats... https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/whatsapp-vs-telegram-encryption-battle/ https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/whatsapp-vs-telegram-encrypt...

daveguy 9y ago
That explains why telegram might be worth over $1 billion one day (or even today). It still doesn't explain why telegram needs $1 billion. It also doesn't explain how any of the value of telegram is imparted to the coin itself. Just because a coin is associated with a company doesn't make it as valuable as the company.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  ssshhh, that kind of talk is how you pop the bubble before the people who know this can cash out.
zanny 9y ago
Except Telegram is not pervasive in emerging markets like Whatsapp was, and history has demonstrated that users are very fickle with messaging apps - they aren't keeping an essential history like in social media that they cannot easily export or take with them, they are used for moment to moment conversations that are discardable, just like the apps that host them. Even then, all that argues for is the value in buying Telegram, not in giving them more money. What the hell does an already established and functioning group chat / voice calling / semi-encrypted phone and electron desktop app need in 2018? Whatsapp was spending hundreds of millions just to acquire users with no monetization strategy for the sake of having users, same with Telegram. I highly doubt Facebook can get any reasonable conversion ratio from Whatsapp user to Facebook regular that already wouldn't happen on its own. Having an audience is worth something, but it is not worth billions unless you are actually getting substantial value from that audience consistently.

rebuilder 9y ago

I haven't read much at all about the particulars as far as Telegrams ICO goes. Generally, though, I'd point out that the total sum invested in an ICO doesn't necessarily equal the sum available to the company issuing the coin. Usually, as I understand it, the ICO issuer will hold some of the coins, and sell some of them, and potentially more will be minted in accordance to the issuance schedule of the coin in question. So in an ICO, the initial sum of tokens might be, e.g. 1,000,000 coins, with the issuer keeping, say, 300,000 coins and selling the rest. If buyers invest USD 1,000,000,000 as in this case, then very theoretically, the issuer now holds USD 300,000,000 worth of the tokens they issued. In practice, to use those funds for operational expenses (or drugs and prostitutes, as the suspicion tends to be), they need to sell the tokens on the open market, and are likely to get much less than the "nominal" value if they sell large amounts. Again, I have no knowledge of what the particulars of Telegram's ICO are, just pointing out that they probably haven't raised USD 1B in operational funds.

atomical 9y ago
> I'd point out that the total sum invested in an ICO doesn't necessarily equal the sum available to the company issuing the coin. That's exactly what it means. Circulating supply is a different story though based on lock up. > If buyers invest USD 1,000,000,000 as in this case, then very theoretically, the issuer now holds USD 300,000,000 worth of the tokens they issued. If the buyer sends $1bn directly to Telegram for any amount of coins then Telegram now has $1bn in the bank.

pjc50 9y ago

Other way round: there is a huge amount of dumb money raining down in the cryptocurrency space, and Telegram have decided to put out a bucket to catch some. They're already some way ahead of the average ICO in having an actual product, a management team whose names are known and not living in non-extraditeable countries, and so on.