👣🧦Dirty Laundry
In recent months, Telegram users were greeted by an unexpected surge of cryptocurrency "faucet" bots—hundreds, perhaps thousands—all operating atop the TON blockchain. These bots claimed to dispense tiny amounts of Toncoin, but only after users paid absurd “gas fees” upfront. Yet withdrawals rarely worked—and then the bots disappeared, seemingly overnight.
What Were These Bots?
These so‑called faucets weren’t officially sanctioned. Instead, they seemed to be part of a broader scam ecosystem on Telegram, where bots spun mini‑games, wallet prompts, referral links—and siphoned real crypto in fees and deposits . Many of these schemes fall into classic exit‑scam or pyramid‑structure patterns, often launched by anonymous individuals or groups. It’s unclear if they were college assignments or passion projects by developers—their sudden disappearance suggests a cash‑out, rather than an academic pivot.
Where Does the SEC Fit In?
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) famously intervened in the broader TON/Telegram landscape back in 2019, arguing that the TON “Grams” token sale was actually an unregistered securities offering—leading to a court injunction and a 2020 settlement in which Telegram returned over US $1.22 billion and paid an $18.5 million penalty . After that, Telegram officially abandoned TON and relinquished control to independent developers .
But notably, the SEC’s actions targeted the core token sale by Telegram—not the proliferation of faucet bots. The SEC has not (publicly) taken action against these Telegram bot operators. These faucet bots appear to be exploiting the regulatory void left behind—automated mini‑programs capitalizing on the decentralized TON ecosystem and user trust.
Were Any Creators Held Accountable?
No public enforcement has been directed at the faucet‑bot creators. Their disappearance leaves many questions unanswered: Were they computer science students building test projects? Opportunists cashing in on ad revenue and micropaids? It's plausible they launched these games, monetized through fees or advertising, then simply “bounced” when payouts failed or attention faded. Their anonymity and lack of legal registration make accountability very difficult.
Telegram’s Role & Response
Telegram has largely taken a hands‑off stance—consistent with its broader approach to user‑driven content. Its public statement during the 2020 settlement emphasized cessation of TON development, but said little about policing overlay apps like faucet bots. Without active moderation or enforcement mechanisms around crypto‑bots, Telegram has not explicitly addressed this specific wave of scams.
A Glimmer of Hope: TONROCKET Faucet
Amid the chaos, one Telegram bot stands out: TONROCKET. Unlike its fee‑grabbing peers, it works as advertised—connecting to FaucetPay and enabling genuine Toncoin withdrawals via email. It appears FaucetPay—an external payment service—built or sponsored this faucet, perhaps filling a void to restore user trust. This working bot highlights a functional example of how micropayment services on Telegram can work without fee trickery.
Final Thoughts
Telegram’s TON ecosystem remains a wild frontier. While the SEC shut down the official TON launch, it did not—and likely cannot—police decentralized bots. Some of these faucet bots were likely low‑effort money‑grab projects with no long‑term intent. The lack of accountability underscores the fragility of trust when money mixes with anonymity and automation.
Yet TONROCKET suggests that credible, user‑friendly faucets can exist—particularly when tied to legitimate services like FaucetPay. For end users navigating Telegram’s crypto-bot verge, caution remains essential—but there’s also potential for trustworthy innovation. Perhaps next time, savvy builders and careful users can light the darkness, rather than disappear into it.
