Durov had hoped working with the Iranian government and caving to their requirements would give him free rein over that market where Telegram was popular. After eventually facing backlash and blocking from there and realizing that strategy is not sustainable, so they are essentially pivoting to something that makes money quickly for them. I don't think there's a more sophisticated strategy to look for here. Capitalize on the brand, if it is really worth anything, and cash out.

I find a bit suspicious about this ICO. There is no official information about ICO, there is no whitepaper. Or we are went so far that whitepaper is not needed anymore?

It took me two months to read about Tezos project and its founders before I decided to put tiny amount of money into this project (and it still have huge problems with foundation which I couldn't predict).

I don't know enough about it, but maybe it's not a technically novel ICO. Maybe the coins just represent a type of equity?

The WP primer is available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ucUeKg_NiR8RxNAonb8Q55jZha0...

The ICO is happening in March; it hasn't started yet.

Being simultaneously brazen about probably being on the receiving side of a zero-sum game for retail investor cash and in any kind of network-effect business (a messenger surely counts) seems like a solid recipe for a heavily-subscribed ICO.

Durov just playing with everyone and raising hype.

BTW I submitted white paper, but it didn't make front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16149979

Anecdotally, I don't know a single person in my network who uses Telegram but I know numerous people who use Signal (including some very surprising non-tech folks). Is this a common trend or do I just have a really weird network?

My whole extended (Dutch and Swedish) family uses it, mostly due to a distaste of Facebook (so no Whatsapp or FB messenger). It has the advantage of seamlessly joining mobile and desktop versions (for normal conversations, this does not work for device-to-device 'secret' chats) and can be accessed through several free software implementations for the client (including a command line client for Linux). I'm still waiting for a self-hosted server but not holding my breath. Depending on the behaviour of Telegram, Inc. I'll eventually migrate to a self-hosted alternative or try my hand at a self-hosted server implementation.

I know about 30 people who use Telegram but 25 of those are Iranian. Seems to be more popular in countries where VPNs are common, I'm told because Telegram uses less data.

The apps are also really nice. Every platform has it's own native application that runs fast and feels great to use.

> I know about 30 people who use Telegram but 25 of those are Iranian

Speaking of which, how would Telegram avoid falling afoul if sanctions? Can they block P2P transactions?

It also seems like the best option for people to host larger discussion groups.

This is the same for me, but keep in mind that chat programs in general seem to be extremely geographically-specialized; each global region or sub-region seems to have their own.

Telegram's user base is primarily located in Iran, which is why most of the people I know who use Telegram are Iranian. Most of the people I know who use Signal are US-based, usually more tech-oriented.

I'm on the opposite side of that, most of my network uses telegram, but few use signal.

Its very big in the dev community in Tel Aviv

I was applying for jobs out there and many of the startups that were interested in me requested communicating over it instead of something like sms or WhatsApp.

Its not even a security thing, just their mode of communication

Around me, it's used a lot for larger group chats (which in Signal often did fail badly) and by people wanting desktop clients.

I know it's very popular in Russia.

also in Germany for those who don't like facebook.

not a bad marketing strategy, sure got everyone's attention!

It's kind of strange to see how Telegram and Coinbase turned out. HN was practically hyperventilating against both of them. (I was a part of that rabble.)

The words had merit, but it's weird to see that they didn't really matter.

I mean, why not?

It is unlikely courts will impose support, fiduciary or other requirements on Telegram, ex post facto, in respect of these tokens. Telegram could cash out the proceeds to pay a massive dividend and then call it a day (i.e. pay salaries, dabble, and take lots of vacation days). It might be contested. But on what grounds?

I think Durov is an honest actor. But what says Durov calls the shots a year, or five years, or ten years from now? In any case, if you have to trust Durov to be nice, what is the point of a decentralized architecture?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor investment advice.

Durov has made claims about Whatapps in the past that was not very honest if I remember correctly