[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp20965.pdf
Effectively, yes. People who buy these contracts are funding the development of the TON Network. The promised reward is in the form of digital coins on that yet-to-be-developed network. The contract only pays off if Telegram's development succeeds. It's effectively an investment in Telegram.
It looks like they claim they are allowed to (https://www.sec.gov/smallbusiness/exemptofferings/regcrowdfu...) but at the same time in various businesses it is normal to take the money before a thing is built, that's just usually how it has to work.
There is no reasonable expectation of profit for people funding via Kickstarter.
This is a vehicle for investing in Telegram's business. If you buy this contract, you're giving Telegram money, which they promise to use to develop a new service. They promise to give you a cut of the value created by that new service. This is very much like a stock offering.
Neither is crypto.
I use it to buy real things all the time.
Usually at a significant price discount, to boot!
I keep getting downvoted -- I'm not arguing that Telegram has a workable business plan, just that this isn't really something the SEC can regulate.
People can buy things to enjoy, not just to resell.
This is probably because when adding the second, you see there is a major theme of profit redistribution. In all of those cases profit is collected centrally and then redistributed. With a collectible or a token such as gram it is not -- the item may become more valuable, partially due to activities of the creator, but it is not a profit sharing scheme.
So... do Telegram's tokens grant you some definite share of their future profits? You're giving them money, but there is no legal recourse to claim a return from what I can see.