The TON blockchain, originally envisioned by Telegram and now maintained by a decentralized community, has seen explosive growth in adoption and market valuation. As one of the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap, TON attracts significant investor interest. However, beneath the surface lies a critical question: how decentralized is TON really? Chain analysis suggests that a large portion of its token supply may be concentrated in the hands of a few early mining groups—many of which show strong links to the TON Foundation. This article dives deep into on-chain data to explore the distribution of TON tokens during its initial mining phase and assess whether concerns about centralization are valid.
The Origins of TON’s Token Distribution
TON’s token issuance was remarkably fast and centralized in timing. Between July 6 and August 26, 2020—just 51 days—approximately 96% of the total TON supply was mined. During this short window, mining activity was dominated by a limited number of wallet addresses, raising red flags about decentralization from the outset.
On-chain investigations reveal that at least 85.8% of all TON tokens were mined by seven interlinked miner groups. While none of these wallets are officially registered under the TON Foundation, multiple behavioral and transactional patterns strongly suggest coordination—and likely indirect control—by core project stakeholders.
👉 Discover how early blockchain activity shapes long-term token value and investor risk.
Group 1: The First Wave (22% of Supply)
From July 6 to July 30, the first group mined 1.1 billion TON, representing 22% of the total supply. This cluster consisted of 36 mining nodes, all receiving their first rewards within a narrow eight-hour window—from 18:55 on July 6 to 01:04 on July 7.
Such synchronized activation is highly unusual in a truly open and competitive mining environment. It implies these nodes were pre-configured and controlled by a single entity. Further evidence includes coordinated withdrawal patterns:
- On December 10, 2021, withdrawals from addresses ending in z6oH, KKeo, and X0zB occurred just three minutes apart.
- On December 17, withdrawals between X2i3 and _QHG were spaced by 10 minutes.
- One address (Pvgy) donated its entire mining yield to the TON Foundation and used it for staking—indicating direct alignment with foundation interests.
Group 2: Seamless Handover (20% of Supply)
As Group 1 shut down on July 30, Group 2—comprising 26 new nodes—came online almost immediately. The last reward for Group 1 was recorded at 20:24:59, while Group 2 received its first block reward at 20:25:47, a mere 48-second gap.
This near-instant transition suggests centralized coordination rather than organic miner participation. Of note:
- Six addresses donated 100% of their holdings to the TON Foundation.
- Twelve others donated between 10% and 40%.
- This marked the largest single-day node activation since mining began.
The timing and donation behavior point to a unified strategy across both groups—consistent with foundation-aligned operations.
Group 3: Extended Mining with Cross-Group Links (18.8% of Supply)
Group 3 began mining on July 6 and continued until August 24, ultimately extracting 940 million TON (18.8%) through 14 nodes. Notably, three addresses (Vqwi, X0zB, KKeo) funneled over 40 million tokens each into a single consolidation address (wqrH), demonstrating centralized fund management.
This group also shares transactional links with Group 1, reinforcing the idea of coordinated mining efforts across seemingly separate clusters.
Group 4: Exchange Liquidity Providers (17.2% of Supply)
Mining from July 19 to August 24, Group 4 produced 859 million TON (17.2%) via multiple addresses. Crucially, some wallets in this group—such as n__T and oQMb—interacted indirectly with putF (a Group 3 address) through intermediary BDa2.
Even more telling: funds from address w2Qp (linked to wzns) were used to provide liquidity for major exchanges, including OKX and FTX, each receiving 10 million TON. This level of institutional integration strongly implies close ties to project leadership.
👉 See how exchange liquidity impacts price stability and market confidence.
Group 5: Connections to Core Developers (Significant Overlap)
Group 5 includes 13 addresses active from August 1 to August 24. Two key miners—w_VD and NL1O—sent over 49 million TON to BDa2, linking them directly to Group 4.
Additionally:
- Address LJwP made repeated transfers to Oleg Illarionov, co-founder of TON Keeper, a major wallet provider in the ecosystem.
- LJwP also sent 600,000 TON to d8O2, associated with the Tonkeeper team.
These interactions confirm that at least part of this mining activity was closely connected to core development teams—further blurring the line between "independent miners" and foundation insiders.
Group 6: Behavioral Clustering (0.9% of Supply)
Active from August 8 to August 26, Group 6 mined 45 million TON (0.9%) using 68 behaviorally similar addresses. Although smaller in output, this group is linked to Groups 3–5 via shared interactions with BDa2, suggesting it was part of the broader coordinated network.
Group 7: Direct Foundation Interaction (Critical Evidence)
The final group consists of only four addresses starting on August 18. Despite limited output, their transaction history reveals striking connections:
- iE3g sent all mined tokens to LJwP (Group 5).
- PQY_ connected to Group 6 via dRZJ.
- ceg_ made a test transaction of 25 TON to the first official TON Foundation address.
- More importantly, ceg_ is the only address ever to receive TON back from the foundation’s primary wallet—twice: first 12 TON, then 7.5 TON a week later.
This two-way communication is rare and highly indicative of privileged access—likely granted only to trusted parties within the inner circle.
Aggregated Findings: Centralized Control Patterns
Combining all seven groups:
- Total mined: ~4.3 billion TON
- Percentage of total supply: ~85.8%
- Interconnected via shared addresses (BDa2, wqrH)
- Multiple donations to the TON Foundation
- Provision of exchange liquidity
- Direct links to core developers and foundation wallets
While no single entity owns these wallets outright, the behavioral consistency, transactional overlaps, and strategic fund deployment strongly imply coordinated control—likely orchestrated or approved by the TON Foundation.
Addressing Centralization Concerns
In response to growing scrutiny, the TON community passed a governance proposal in February 2023 to freeze approximately 20% of the total token supply held in inactive early wallets for four years. This move aims to reduce immediate sell pressure and improve perceived decentralization.
Today, the largest single holder on record is this frozen reserve, publicly visible on explorers like Tonscan.
FAQ: Understanding TON’s Distribution Dynamics
Q: Does high concentration mean TON is not decentralized?
A: High initial concentration doesn’t automatically mean low decentralization long-term. Many successful blockchains like Solana started with centralized distributions but evolved. What matters is ongoing validator diversity, community governance, and transparent fund usage.
Q: Can the TON Foundation manipulate the market?
A: While they don’t directly own most wallets, their influence through aligned actors raises concerns. However, the four-year freeze on reserves signals an effort to mitigate risks and build trust.
Q: How can I verify these claims?
A: All data comes from public blockchain records. Researchers have compiled wallet lists and transaction maps in open spreadsheets and articles (e.g., White Rabbit HQ’s Medium post), allowing independent verification.
Q: Is it safe to invest in a project with such centralization?
A: Investors should weigh risks: centralization increases vulnerability to manipulation but may also enable faster decision-making. Evaluate based on use case growth, ecosystem development, and transparency improvements over time.
Q: Why did so much mining happen in just 51 days?
A: The rapid issuance was designed to quickly bootstrap network security and ecosystem funding. However, it limited public participation and favored well-resourced insiders who could deploy nodes instantly.
👉 Explore real-time blockchain analytics tools to track wallet movements yourself.
Final Thoughts: Decentralization Beyond Appearances
The TON case illustrates a key truth in crypto: on-chain decentralization is often more complex than it appears. While marketed as an open network, its foundation phase shows hallmarks of tight control. Yet high concentration isn't inherently negative—if managed responsibly, it can support strategic growth.
For investors and users, the takeaway is clear: look beyond hype. Analyze tokenomics, trace early allocations, and question narratives. True decentralization isn't measured by marketing—it's proven through transparency, accessibility, and distributed power.
As TON continues expanding its ecosystem—from gaming to payments—its ability to distribute influence beyond early insiders will determine its long-term legitimacy and resilience.
Core Keywords: TON token distribution, TON Foundation control, blockchain decentralization, early miner analysis, on-chain investigation, cryptocurrency concentration, TON staking, blockchain transparency