Telegram founder alleges Reliance BGP hijacking worldwide disruption
On June 17, 2026, Telegram founder Pavel Durov accused India’s telecom operator Reliance of blocking Telegram access globally. Durov claims Reliance used BGP hijacking—unauthorized Border Gateway Protocol routing announcements—to reroute internet traffic away from Telegram’s servers.
The allegation comes as India imposes a temporary nationwide Telegram ban until June 22, citing exam-related fraud concerns. Durov argues the ban harms more than 150 million legitimate Indian Telegram users without addressing the leaks problem.
Durov specifically points to improper routing announcements attributed to Reliance’s network (Rcom/AS18101). He says the disruption was not limited to India, but also affected users outside the country, including in the UAE. He urged other global network operators to reject the “bogus routes” so Telegram access can be restored.
Durov further alleges the interference could be financially motivated to benefit Meta’s WhatsApp. He notes Reliance’s ties to Meta via Jio Platforms, where Meta invested billions in 2020. Since India is WhatsApp’s largest market, Telegram’s growth may be targeted by suppressing Telegram.
Neither Reliance nor Meta has responded. The claims of deliberate BGP hijacking and any collusion remain unverified.
Neutral
This is primarily a telecom/network-routing dispute, not a direct crypto policy or token-specific event. Even though Telegram access in India is being challenged, the article does not mention any crypto services, exchanges, stablecoin infrastructure, or on-chain enforcement tied to the allegations.
However, historically, periods of sudden internet blocking or platform restrictions can cause short-term sentiment swings in Web3-adjacent communities and can briefly increase risk-off behavior if traders perceive broader regulatory pressure. Similar patterns have appeared during messaging-platform bans and network disruptions in past cycles, where market impact was mostly indirect—more about sentiment and liquidity management than fundamentals.
In the short term, traders may watch for any spillover into crypto-related communications (e.g., exchange announcements, communities) or any follow-up from regulators that could broaden enforcement. In the long term, unless the dispute escalates into enforceable cyber/telecom policy that directly affects crypto infrastructure, the impact should remain limited. Therefore, the expected market impact is neutral.