I’ve been following Telcoin’s developments and I’m curious about your perspective. With Telcoin planning to issue an eUSD stablecoin and positioning its platform to support any stablecoin for cross-border transactions, how do you see this driving the value of Telcoin ($TEL)?
Also, I’ve noticed that Telcoin hasn’t disclosed whether they even own any TEL tokens. Without confirmed holdings, what incentive would they have to actively drive up the value of TEL? Would love to hear your insights.
Regarding the eUSD initiative and Telcoin’s broader stablecoin strategy, I see this as a pivotal move in expanding the utility of the Telcoin Platform. By enabling cross-border transactions with stablecoins—beginning with a native eUSD—Telcoin is addressing a real pain point in remittances: high cost and inefficiency. The value proposition lies not just in the stablecoins themselves, but in Telcoin’s RegFi (regulated DeFi) model, which integrates telecom partners as compliance-aware on-ramps and off-ramps. This network effect could drive adoption of the Telcoin Platform, indirectly increasing demand for $TEL as a utility and governance token within the system. Increased demand with high scarcity will push the price up. Right now scarcity is very high - the circulating supply is 99%. The more features, the better for the holder.
Hodler, Really appreciate your reply and the insight into Telcoin’s RegFi approach. I understand how Telcoin is using stablecoins like eUSD to tackle inefficiencies in remittances, and I see the logic in telecom integration helping to drive adoption.
What I’m still trying to pin down is the actual mechanism that creates and sustains scarcity for $TEL. You mentioned that scarcity is currently very high (99% circulating), which makes sense. But going forward, as more people use the platform to send or receive money in stablecoins like eUSD, what specifically drives continued demand or removes $TEL from circulation?
To be more precise — is there a token sink model in place?
By that I mean: a built-in system where $TEL is either used up, locked up, or permanently removed from circulation as a function of platform activity. Token sink models often include things like:
burning a portion of transaction fees,
staking mechanisms that lock tokens in exchange for services or rewards,
paying for platform functions exclusively in $TEL,
or requiring $TEL to unlock premium features or governance rights.
If Telcoin’s utility token isn’t directly involved in stablecoin-based transactions, or if fees are settled in eUSD rather than $TEL, then it’s not clear how $TEL appreciates based on actual platform usage.
Would love to hear your take on how that’s structured — and whether Telcoin’s model includes a sustainable feedback loop that truly links adoption to token value.
Hello Holder Vaughn,
I’ve been following Telcoin’s developments and I’m curious about your perspective. With Telcoin planning to issue an eUSD stablecoin and positioning its platform to support any stablecoin for cross-border transactions, how do you see this driving the value of Telcoin ($TEL)?
Also, I’ve noticed that Telcoin hasn’t disclosed whether they even own any TEL tokens. Without confirmed holdings, what incentive would they have to actively drive up the value of TEL? Would love to hear your insights.
Thanks in advance!
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the thoughtful questions.
Regarding the eUSD initiative and Telcoin’s broader stablecoin strategy, I see this as a pivotal move in expanding the utility of the Telcoin Platform. By enabling cross-border transactions with stablecoins—beginning with a native eUSD—Telcoin is addressing a real pain point in remittances: high cost and inefficiency. The value proposition lies not just in the stablecoins themselves, but in Telcoin’s RegFi (regulated DeFi) model, which integrates telecom partners as compliance-aware on-ramps and off-ramps. This network effect could drive adoption of the Telcoin Platform, indirectly increasing demand for $TEL as a utility and governance token within the system. Increased demand with high scarcity will push the price up. Right now scarcity is very high - the circulating supply is 99%. The more features, the better for the holder.
Also read here: https://open.substack.com/pub/telcoinmagazine/p/over-200-million-users-22-mobile?r=odijo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Hodler, Really appreciate your reply and the insight into Telcoin’s RegFi approach. I understand how Telcoin is using stablecoins like eUSD to tackle inefficiencies in remittances, and I see the logic in telecom integration helping to drive adoption.
What I’m still trying to pin down is the actual mechanism that creates and sustains scarcity for $TEL. You mentioned that scarcity is currently very high (99% circulating), which makes sense. But going forward, as more people use the platform to send or receive money in stablecoins like eUSD, what specifically drives continued demand or removes $TEL from circulation?
To be more precise — is there a token sink model in place?
By that I mean: a built-in system where $TEL is either used up, locked up, or permanently removed from circulation as a function of platform activity. Token sink models often include things like:
burning a portion of transaction fees,
staking mechanisms that lock tokens in exchange for services or rewards,
paying for platform functions exclusively in $TEL,
or requiring $TEL to unlock premium features or governance rights.
If Telcoin’s utility token isn’t directly involved in stablecoin-based transactions, or if fees are settled in eUSD rather than $TEL, then it’s not clear how $TEL appreciates based on actual platform usage.
Would love to hear your take on how that’s structured — and whether Telcoin’s model includes a sustainable feedback loop that truly links adoption to token value.
Thanks again for engaging.
Hodler, not sure if you received my reply above.
Hey Mike,
I drafted this response - not gonna publish it... But would like to see if it addresses your question:
https://telcoinmagazine.substack.com/p/389c1079-c9c4-4503-86c7-7f1efe7152c4
Let me know when you've read, I'll delete.