Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly questioned the inflation mechanics of Telegram’s newly rebranded Gram (GRAM) token, responding to Telegram founder Pavel Durov praising Bitcoin (BTC) as a defense against government money printing.
The remarks circulated on X, where Durov argued in an interview that governments relentlessly expand the money supply while Bitcoin stands apart. Back, a longtime cypherpunk and core Bitcoin contributor, replied directly within the thread that someone is nonetheless printing GRAM, a pointed reference to the token’s inflationary supply schedule.
Durov has held BTC as his primary personal reserve for over a decade. He purchased roughly 2,000 BTC in 2013 at an average price of around $700 per coin and has maintained the position through several market cycles. Those holdings reportedly helped fund Telegram’s operating costs during periods when the platform ran without traditional revenue streams.
His Bitcoin advocacy, however, arrives as the Telegram ecosystem completes its most significant token transition in years. Telegram’s native token was recently rebranded from Toncoin to Gram, restoring a name that appeared in the project’s original 2018 blockchain whitepaper before US regulators forced an earlier halt. All holdings converted at a 1:1 ratio, with no action required from holders. Exchanges have since updated their listings to reflect the new ticker.
GRAM Has No Hard Supply Cap
In contrast to Bitcoin’s protocol-enforced ceiling of 21 million coins, GRAM carries no equivalent limit. The network generates new tokens each day through validator rewards, sustaining an annual inflation rate of approximately 0.3% to 0.6%. Total supply currently sits near 5.2 billion tokens. Meanwhile, the supply ceiling remains a governance question rather than a cryptographic constant.
Back has argued that Bitcoin’s monetary credibility depends on a fixed, auditable issuance schedule that no governance decision can override. He therefore made a parallel argument earlier in 2026, rejecting a contested fork proposal on similar grounds that changing Bitcoin’s core rules produces a separate asset, not an upgrade.
GRAM’s emission parameters, by contrast, rest with network validators rather than a protocol rule hardened against external pressure. That distinction sits at the center of his challenge to Durov.
The debate ultimately centers on the differences between Bitcoin’s fixed monetary policy and GRAM’s validator-driven issuance model, which continues to shape discussions about the token’s role in the Telegram ecosystem.
More broadly, the exchange highlights the ongoing debate over what characteristics qualify a digital asset as a long-term store of value and the role monetary policy plays in that assessment.
