ton

Lately, the things happening with $GRAM have been a bit strange for me. The main Telegram channel for TON has been silent, with no posts or updates. There has been no explanation as to why the Ton Foundation has been replaced by Telegram. Pavel Durov's plan for MTON is heating up the market, but it's also cooling down just as quickly. The price is only rising during news events and then quickly returning to its previous level.
Therefore, I've analyzed some of the key changes and the reasons behind the problems.
Key Updates in the TON Network
The TON (Gram) network has undergone significant updates recently. These updates are aimed at improving the overall stability and usability of the network:
1. Network Efficiency and Speed:
- The network architecture has been updated.
- Transaction processing speed has been significantly increased.
2. Reduced Transaction Fees:
- Transaction fees (gas fees) for users have been reduced by almost 6 times.
- Current fees are now close to zero, making the network more accessible for small transactions.
3. Integration with Telegram and the TON Foundation:
- Telegram has taken over the role of the main organizer and largest validator of TON, replacing the TON Foundation.
- This change has increased the operational efficiency of the TON network while maintaining its decentralization.
4. Website and Technology Updates:
- A new ton.org website has been launched.
- New and improved developer tools have been released.
- Network performance metrics and monitoring systems have been updated.
5. Rebranding:
- The process of transitioning from the name "Ton" to "Gram" has begun. This rebranding strategy is aimed at increasing the global recognition of the network.
6. Gram Wallet (Non-custodial):
- A fully non-custodial Gram Wallet service has been launched within Telegram.
- This service allows users to have full control over their private keys, while benefiting from the high security standards of the Telegram platform.
What's the cause of the problems?
Here are some of the reasons I see:
1. The Ton Believers Fund is releasing 36 million Grams each month, putting pressure on the market.
2. Ton Strategy is selling the income from staking, which also creates constant selling pressure.
3. While transaction speed has increased, the inflation rate has also increased. Previously, the annual inflation rate was 0.6%, but it is now over 4%. This means that more Gram tokens are being released into the market each year.
4. Recent price drops have eroded investor confidence.
5. The abundance of uncertainties is causing people to hesitate.
Conclusion
The TON ($GRAM ) network is undergoing a significant period of growth. The increased transaction speed, low fees, and deep integration with Telegram are creating a solid foundation for the network's future.
The price volatility is currently linked to news events. However, the fundamental growth of the network (speed, low cost, increased adoption) is important for investors, and there is hope that these factors will ensure price stability in the long term.
#Gram #Ton #GRAM #TON

In August 2025, STON.fi reported a striking milestone: its liquidity providers had generated 62% of all LP fees recorded across TON in 2025, according to Dune Analytics.

At first glance, that number sounds like a measure of liquidity dominance. But LP fees and liquidity are not the same thing.
A protocol can hold a large amount of liquidity without generating significant fees if traders rarely use it. Conversely, a smaller pool can generate substantial fees if it processes a large amount of trading activity.
So what does the 62% figure actually tell us about STON.fi and TON DeFi?
The answer starts with understanding what an LP fee represents.
❑ 62% Is Not a Liquidity Share
The first distinction is simple but important.
62% of LP fees does not mean STON.fi controlled 62% of TON’s liquidity.
LP fees are generated when traders use liquidity pools. When someone swaps one token for another through an AMM, the trade incurs a fee. A portion of that fee goes to the liquidity providers who supplied the capital used by the pool.
STON.fi’s documented default fee structure is 0.3% per trade, with 0.2% going to liquidity providers and 0.1% going to the protocol. Fee parameters can also be configured at the pool level.
That means the amount of fees generated depends heavily on how much trading actually passes through the liquidity.
A pool containing $10 million that processes very little volume can generate fewer fees than a $2 million pool that traders use constantly.
This is why the 62% statistic is more interesting as a measure of fee-generating activity than as a simple measure of deposited capital.
❑ The Number Came From Trading Activity
The underlying Dune methodology helps explain what was being measured.
The TON Foundation Dune query identified in the research combines TON DEX trade data with daily pool information containing LP fee parameters. Conceptually, the calculation is:
Trading volume × LP fee rate = LP fees generated
The result is then aggregated by DEX.
This matters because it connects the statistic directly to actual on-chain trading activity.
If a pool has a 0.2% LP fee and processes $1 million in eligible trading volume, that activity generates approximately $2,000 in LP fees before considering the precise pool configuration and accounting methodology.
The important point is that the liquidity has to be used.
Capital sitting inside a pool is the infrastructure. Trading activity is what turns that infrastructure into fee generation.
❑ What the 62% Figure Was Actually Saying
STON.fi published the 62% figure on August 7, 2025, describing it as the share of all LP fees generated on TON in 2025 according to Dune Analytics.
The TON ecosystem report for August 2025 also recorded the same 62% milestone.
There is, however, an important time distinction.
The announcement was made in August, meaning the figure was a 2025 year-to-date measurement, not a completed calendar-year result. The public Dune query associated with the analysis can produce a different percentage when later 2025 data is included.
So the most accurate way to understand the statistic is:
As of the period measured in August 2025, STON.fi accounted for 62% of the LP fees recorded across the TON DEX ecosystem.
❑ Why Fee Generation Matters More Than Idle Liquidity
Liquidity is necessary for decentralized trading, but liquidity by itself does not tell us how productive that capital is.
Imagine two DEXs.
DEX A has $50 million in liquidity but very little trading activity.
DEX B has $20 million in liquidity and significantly more trading volume.
If traders consistently use DEX B’s pools, its LPs can generate more fees even though the protocol has less total liquidity.
This creates a simple relationship:
Liquidity → trading capacity → executed volume → LP fees
The 62% figure therefore tells us that a very large share of the fee-generating activity measured across TON was occurring through STON.fi liquidity.
❑ STON.fi Had Both Liquidity and Significant Trading Activity
The broader TON ecosystem data gives the 62% milestone useful context.
In May 2025, the TON ecosystem report recorded STON.fi’s TVL at approximately $65 million, representing a 30% month-over-month increase.
Later in 2025, the ecosystem report recorded STON.fi at $38.2 million in TVL, $105 million in monthly volume, more than 5.6 million cumulative users, and more than 29.7 million cumulative swaps.
These numbers should not be treated as the explanation for the 62% figure by themselves. They are measured at different points in time and use different metrics.
But together, they show something important: STON.fi was operating with a substantial liquidity base while also processing significant trading activity.
That combination is exactly what produces LP fees.
❑ TON Was Not a One-DEX Market
Another important part of the story is competition.
STON.fi was not generating these fees in an ecosystem without alternatives. TON had multiple DEXs, including DeDust and TONCO, each with its own liquidity pools, trading activity and fee structures.
Dune’s TON DEX data shows STON.fi, DeDust, TONCO and other protocols participating in the same broader trading ecosystem.
That makes the 62% figure more meaningful.
The question is not simply whether STON.fi had liquidity.
The question is how much of the ecosystem’s fee-generating activity was actually settling through that liquidity compared with the alternatives.
And according to the reported Dune measurement, STON.fi accounted for the largest share during the measured period.
❑ But High Aggregate Fees Do Not Mean Every LP Won
There is another distinction that is easy to miss.
A protocol generating 62% of ecosystem LP fees does not mean every LP on that protocol earned a 62% return, or even that every STON.fi LP earned more than LPs elsewhere.
Individual LP earnings depend on the specific pool and the LP’s share of it.
Suppose a pool generates $100,000 in LP fees. An LP providing 1% of that pool would not receive the entire $100,000. Their share would depend on their proportional ownership and the pool’s accounting.
There is also another side to liquidity provision: price movement.
LPs can experience impermanent loss when the relative prices of deposited assets change. Therefore, gross fee generation and an individual LP’s final economic return are not the same measurement.
The 62% statistic describes aggregate fee generation at the protocol/ecosystem level, not the profitability of every individual liquidity provider.
❑ Where Omniston Fits Into the Picture
STON.fi’s broader infrastructure also includes Omniston, its liquidity aggregation and routing layer.
Omniston can source liquidity from multiple venues and routes, including STON.fi pools and other liquidity sources.
That distinction matters.
Omniston is not the same thing as STON.fi’s AMM liquidity.
A route using another DEX’s pool does not automatically become STON.fi LP volume.
The Dune methodology behind the LP-fee calculation is based on executed DEX trades and the fee parameters associated with the pools involved. Therefore, only trading activity that actually generates fees for STON.fi pools contributes to STON.fi’s LP-fee total under that methodology.
There is not enough historical evidence to claim that Omniston itself caused the 62% milestone, so the statistic should stand on its own.
❑ The Bigger Signal Is Liquidity That Gets Used
The most useful way to interpret the 62% milestone is not:
STON.fi had 62% of TON’s liquidity.
The evidence does not establish that.
A more accurate interpretation is:
During the measured 2025 period, STON.fi liquidity accounted for 62% of the LP fees recorded across the TON DEX ecosystem.
That points toward something more fundamental about decentralized exchanges.
Liquidity has value when it is useful.
For LPs, useful liquidity is liquidity that traders actually interact with. Every eligible swap creates fee-generating activity, and sustained trading activity can turn deposited capital into an ongoing source of fee revenue.
This is also why TVL alone can provide an incomplete picture of a DEX.
TVL tells us how much capital is there.
LP fees tell us how much fee-generating activity that liquidity helped facilitate.
Both metrics matter, but they answer different questions.
❑ What the 62% Milestone Actually Tells Us
The 62% figure should not be treated as proof that STON.fi is automatically the “best” DEX on TON.
It does, however, provide a measurable snapshot of where a large portion of TON’s LP fee generation was occurring.
Combined with STON.fi’s documented liquidity infrastructure, substantial trading activity and large user base, the data shows a DEX whose liquidity was being used at significant scale.
And that is the more interesting story behind the number.
Liquidity is only the starting point. The real economic activity begins when traders use it.
If you want to explore the liquidity pools behind STON.fi’s trading ecosystem, you can start directly at: https://ston.fi
#TON $TON $STON #defi