2026-01-07 01:38:24

Recently, there have been numerous rumors about Telegram's financing structure. Telegram founder Pavel Durov has recently come forward to clarify. He explicitly stated that Telegram has no connection with Russia at the capital level. In the recent $1.7 billion bond issuance, there were no Russian investors involved at all.

Speaking of financing history, what about that old bond round in 2021? It was mostly paid off long ago, and there are no issues now. Some people might be confusing a concept — holding bonds does not mean being a shareholder. This is very important, and many people tend to get it wrong. Durov mainly wants to dispel various doubts in the market this time, using factual data to speak. After all, in this era of information explosion, the speed at which rumors spread is often much faster than the truth.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

20 Likes

Reward
20
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

PrivateKeyParanoia

· 01-09 15:52

Bondholders are not shareholders, which is indeed easy to confuse with those who like to stir the pot. Another clarification moment—this is what an era of information chaos looks like. Does Durov need to come out and debunk rumors every week? If this continues, Even the $1.7 billion bond financing has to be explained like this, it's a bit exhausting. Whether it's clear or not, some people believe in conspiracy theories; it all depends on whose mouth is bigger.

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAllDay

· 01-09 12:38

Bondholders ≠ Shareholders. Many people have indeed misunderstood this point, no wonder. Rumors spread faster than the truth, a common issue in the information age. Durov's clarification this time was a timely stop-loss; the $1.7 billion bonds had no Russian involvement, the data is right here. The 2021 bond issuance is almost fully repaid by now, there's no suspense. Are these clarifications useful? Those who believe will believe, and those who don't will keep spinning stories.

View OriginalReply0

4am_degen

· 01-07 06:45

Coming back to clarify the rumors? I think this time they're really panicking. debt holders≠shareholders. This point definitely needs to be clarified, but as for no Russian capital... how many people actually believe that? Did they repay last year's bonds early? What about 2021? Anyway, I'm just here to watch the show.

View OriginalReply0

tx_or_didn't_happen

· 01-07 02:08

Still debunking rumors? Forget it, I don’t believe it anyway --- Bondholders ≠ Shareholders, this Russian dad finally takes the time to explain seriously --- In the age of information explosion, rumors spread quickly... but this explanation isn’t new either --- Alright, just lay out the data, no more beating around the bush --- This update is a bit rushed, is there really a problem behind the scenes? --- Haha, every clarification seems to trigger more speculation, reverse operation? --- Are the bonds basically paid off in 2021? Many people really get this mixed up --- It looks pretty urgent, but I can understand it too --- So Russia really didn’t invest any money, huh? --- Another "official clarification," why is it so easy to debunk rumors now?

View OriginalReply0

OnChainArchaeologist

· 01-07 02:06

Here we go again, clarifying the issue of Russian capital. How many times do we need to say this? Bondholders ≠ Shareholders. This concept really needs to be well promoted. The $1.7 billion without Russian involvement, the truth is finally clear. Rumors spread faster than the truth. These days, information warfare is really intense. It's better for Durov to speak out than to hide. At least he's taking a stance. Actually, compared to rumors, I care more about when Telegram's business model will become clearer. How long can this clarification silence the rumors? I bet at most a week before new rumors emerge. Just present the data, no need to fuss around.

View OriginalReply0

liquidation_watcher

· 01-07 01:57

Bondholders ≠ Shareholders. This can indeed be confusing, but it's not everyone's fault; information warfare is like that.

View OriginalReply0

ZKSherlock

· 01-07 01:50

actually... people still getting the bondholder ≠ shareholder thing wrong? lol this is literally information theory 101—understanding the trust assumptions matters here. durov's gotta keep repeating this because misinformation spreads faster than zero-knowledge proofs compute, which is saying something

Reply0