Toncoinの‌価格TON

TODAY'S PRIME FOCUS: The future targets for⬇️ 🔮 $TON | Toncoin [@ton_blockchain] For information only—Not investment advice. DYOR❗️ Find out the predicted price target for $TON in 2025 according to our analysts 👇

TON Price Prediction: Targeting $2.28 Recovery Within 5 Days as Technical Indicators Signal Oversold Bounce Toncoin technical analysis reveals bullish MACD momentum targeting $2.28 (+39%) within 5 days, with analysts projecting $2.04-$2.51 range for December recovery rally.

$TON Is Quietly Setting Up for Its Next Major Expansion, And Most Traders Are Missing It Everyone is staring at $BTC Meanwhile, TON is building momentum where it matters: real users + real utility. Here’s the simple breakdown: 1️⃣ Telegram traffic is pushing fresh liquidity into TON Every day, thousands of new wallets are created directly from Telegram. This is something no other chain has right now. 2️⃣ STON.fi volume is increasing even in a slow market When a DEX grows during consolidation, it means people are positioning early. Liquidity is flowing quietly. 3️⃣ New catalysts (TON L2s, RiseX, ecosystem memecoins) are heating up These micro-narratives move fast — the last few TON gems did 5×–20× before most traders even noticed. TON isn’t hyped yet. It’s building pressure. If BTC stays stable, TON might surprise the market with a faster breakout than expected. Follow Me I break down #TON, STON.fi, and early TON ecosystem trends daily, follow to catch the next narrative early.

‎ ‎Introduction ‎ ‎I don’t evaluate DeFi protocols by hype, APY banners, or influencer threads. I evaluate them the way an infrastructure researcher would: by how the system behaves under load, how liquidity flows through it, and how predictable execution is when markets get volatile. ‎That’s the perspective I’ve used while studying STON.fi on The Open Network (TON). After watching its technical evolution and market behavior closely, I no longer see it as “just another DEX.” I see it as infrastructure that was designed to scale before it was asked to. ‎Most AMMs grow first and try to fix problems later. STON.fi took the opposite approach. ‎ ‎ ‎How TON Changes Trading Economics ‎ ‎I’ve worked with Ethereum-based AMMs long enough to understand their structural limits. High gas fees distort trader behavior, delay execution, and make many strategies economically impossible. ‎What makes STON.fi different is not the interface it’s the environment it runs in. ‎ ‎TON’s sharded architecture allows parallel transaction processing. In practice, this means trades settle faster and cost so little that the cost no longer dictates strategy. I’ve seen how this changes trader behavior. When fees are almost irrelevant, users stop hesitating. Liquidity moves more freely, arbitrage becomes healthier, and price discovery improves. ‎This is a foundational difference. It’s not cosmetic. It’s structural. ‎ ‎ ‎  Solving Liquidity Fragmentation ‎ ‎Most people don’t realize how much damage fragmented liquidity causes until they’ve built on top of it. I have. ‎When liquidity scatters across multiple pools and venues, users get bad prices, LPs get inefficient capital deployment, and developers waste months integrating multiple routes. ‎STON.fi addressed this with Omniston and from an architectural perspective, this was a smart move. ‎Omniston doesn’t just “aggregate.” It intelligently routes liquidity in a way that is native to TON’s asynchronous message system. That matters because the chain’s design allows routing decisions to be made faster, with lower execution risk. ‎From a builder’s point of view, this reduces system complexity. One integration gives access to network-level liquidity. That’s not convenience. That’s infrastructure hygiene. ‎ ‎ ‎Why I Trust the Risk Design of STON.fi ‎ ‎Most DeFi failures don’t come from hacks. They come from badly designed incentives and poorly modeled risk. ‎STON.fi stands out because it addressed two of the most painful risks at the structural level. ‎The first is MEV. On many chains, sandwich attacks and front-running extract hidden taxes from users. TON’s design naturally reduces these opportunities, and STON.fi benefits directly from that. Not because it added a clever patch, but because the underlying execution model gives attackers less room to operate. ‎ ‎The second is Impermanent Loss. STON.fi introduced built-in protection mechanisms that soften the long-term impact of divergence loss. From my experience analyzing LP behavior, this matters more than flashy APRs. LPs stay when risk feels bounded. ‎That is how you get sticky liquidity. ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Token Design That Shows Long-Term Thinking ‎ ‎You can tell a lot about a protocol by how it designs governance. ‎The $STON token isn’t just a reward coupon. It was designed as a governance primitive from day one. What impressed me was the ARKENSTON model. ‎Voting power is not transferable. It is earned through time-locked staking. The longer the commitment, the more influence the holder has. ‎This is not accidental. It prevents governance capture by short-term capital. In my work analyzing DAO attacks, this is one of the most effective models I’ve seen for reducing governance manipulation. ‎It shows the team understands real-world attack surfaces. ‎ ‎ ‎Liquidity Economics That Don’t Break Under Pressure ‎ ‎I pay close attention to liquidity economics because most AMMs fail here quietly. ‎STON.fi keeps the model simple and stable. There is a fixed trading fee. Liquidity providers receive a predictable share. The protocol treasury receives the remainder. There is no excessive inflation pressure trying to subsidize fake volume. ‎Farming is supported, but it is externalized and controlled by projects themselves. That matters. It separates protocol sustainability from short-term incentives. ‎In my experience, this kind of economic restraint is rare, and it’s usually what keeps protocols alive during market downturns. ‎ ‎ ‎Cross-Chain Strategy That Avoids Known Failure Points ‎ ‎Bridges are the weakest point in DeFi. History has proven that repeatedly. ‎STON.fi’s cross-chain vision avoids the usual trap. Instead of wrapped assets and trust-heavy bridges, the roadmap favors native settlement and trust-minimized routing. ‎From a security engineering standpoint, this is the correct direction. It reduces systemic risk rather than shifting it around. ‎That tells me the protocol is being designed by people who understand failure, not just features. ‎ ‎Telegram Is the Real Distribution Engine ‎ ‎This is where most analysts underestimate what’s happening. ‎TON’s integration with Telegram gives it a native distribution layer that no other chain has. I’ve watched how tokens from Mini Apps and Web-based projects flow directly into STON.fi liquidity. ‎STON.fi is not competing for traffic. It is sitting inside the traffic flow itself. ‎That’s what infrastructure looks like. When you aren’t marketing for users you are where the users already are. ‎ ‎ conclusion ‎I don’t write about every protocol. I focus on systems that show real architectural discipline. ‎STON.fi stands out because it feels engineered, not rushed. It feels like infrastructure being built for stress, not just adoption. ‎From the perspective of someone who studies DeFi mechanics and protocol behavior, STON.fi is not just surviving. It is structurally positioned to scale. ‎That’s why I consider it one of the most serious DeFi infrastructures on TON today. $TON ‎ ‎