This report, authored by Tiger Research, examines the hidden risks associated with the cryptocurrency market's irreplaceable reliance on Telegram and reviews the structural vulnerabilities exposed by Vietnam's ban on Telegram.

Exposed Platform Dependency Risks: In June 2025, Vietnam's ban on Telegram led to a 45% drop in user activity within major cryptocurrency communities over just a few days. The incident highlighted a critical structural vulnerability: the crypto industry's heavy dependence on a single, irreplaceable communication platform.

Lack of Viable Alternatives: Despite exploring alternatives such as Discord, Signal, and local messaging apps, none can replicate the combination of global reach, privacy features, and native crypto user experience that Telegram offers. No other platform currently matches this set of characteristics at scale.

Rising Global Regulatory Pressure: Governments worldwide are increasing scrutiny of Telegram in the name of "digital sovereignty," targeting its stance against data sharing and surveillance. However, Telegram has recently begun cooperating with authorities in specific jurisdictions, temporarily easing concerns in key markets.

1. Telegram's Role in the Cryptocurrency Market

Telegram, with its robust privacy protection, scalable group chats, and bot integration features, has become the primary communication platform for the global crypto community. These attributes make it the go-to choice for KOLs and new projects to build communities. Market participants actively use Telegram as their main channel for interaction.

Telegram now plays a central role in the structure of the cryptocurrency market. Its presence is often taken for granted, but the extent of its deep integration becomes apparent when imagining a major event (such as Token2049) without Telegram—participants would resort to exchanging LinkedIn profiles. Such a scenario feels conspicuously out of place. At this stage, a crypto ecosystem without Telegram is hard to envision.

2. Vietnam's Complete Ban on Telegram

The official Telegram ban order was issued on May 21. Source: thuvienphapluat

On May 21, 2025, in response to a request from the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Information and Communications of Vietnam issued Order No. 2312/CVT-CS, instructing all telecommunications operators to block Telegram services domestically by June 2.

This move immediately caused chaos throughout Vietnam's crypto ecosystem. Vietnam is one of the countries with the largest user base for Telegram, and like many other markets, its domestic crypto sector heavily relies on the platform as the main communication channel. The ban left local crypto projects and users without viable alternatives. Although many turned to VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to maintain access, this workaround was at best a temporary and incomplete solution.

For ordinary users with only a moderate interest in cryptocurrency, accessing Telegram via VPN proved too inconvenient. As a result, many completely withdrew from participation. Within just a few days, the average traffic to Vietnam's top ten major crypto communities dropped by over 45%.

Community organizers began exploring and promoting alternative platforms in response. Activity on Vietnamese servers on Discord surged, while some communities tried local messaging apps like Zalo, aiming to cater to users seeking a lighter, simpler interface.

However, none of these alternatives can replicate the unique balance of usability, privacy, and native crypto features that Telegram offers. Despite the ban, most users still rely on Telegram via VPN—a workaround, not a substitute.

3. Are There Viable Alternatives to Telegram?

Regulatory pressure on Telegram has exposed a structural vulnerability in the crypto industry: its heavy dependence on a single communication platform.

As the Vietnam case shows, the immediate reaction to the ban was the widespread use of VPNs. While this provided a short-term workaround, it posed significant barriers for ordinary users. Although institutional participation in crypto is growing, retail investors still account for a large part of market activity. In a transitional period where the market is trying to move beyond its early adopter base, dependence on Telegram has become a barrier to broader adoption.

This has prompted the industry to actively seek alternative platforms. Discord has become the preferred option for many Vietnamese communities, offering real-time communication and a developer-friendly environment. However, it lacks the mobile-first simplicity that Telegram provides. Another candidate, Signal, advertises strong security features but offers limited tools for native crypto use cases—making it an incomplete substitute.

Other messaging apps, such as Zalo or WhatsApp, tend to have user bases confined to specific regions. This makes them inherently incompatible with the global nature of the crypto ecosystem, which by default requires cross-border communication.

Ultimately, the crypto industry has yet to find a viable alternative to Telegram. While its technical advantages, such as anonymity, privacy, and bot integration, continue to ensure its dominant position, the fundamental issue is structural.

Currently, there is no widely adopted communication platform that can operate seamlessly across borders. Given the varying communication preferences of different countries, finding a single alternative that meets the global needs of the crypto ecosystem remains a significant challenge.

Telegram occupies a rare position in the communication field. It does not dominate any single national market, and for many users, it is not their primary app. However, in many different regions, it is usually the second most used communication tool. This unique status as a universal secondary platform gives Telegram a de facto neutrality that transcends borders. It is precisely this region-agnostic status that makes it so hard to replace.

4. The Growing Regulatory Risks Around Telegram

Despite the lack of viable alternatives, governments worldwide, including Vietnam, are increasing scrutiny of Telegram in the name of "digital sovereignty."

This is largely due to Telegram's strong privacy policies and its general refusal to share user data (with exceptions in a few major jurisdictions). For many governments, the inability to monitor encrypted communications on the platform remains a core concern.

These concerns are increasingly translating into regulatory actions. Countries that have taken measures against Telegram typically follow one of three strategies. The first is a complete ban, usually accompanied by efforts to promote domestic alternatives. The second involves temporary blocks for specific events (such as non-compliance with laws or election-related tensions). The third is selective filtering, where the government allows access to the app but blocks specific channels or restricts its speed.

The precedents set by these cases suggest that more restrictions may be on the horizon. Several countries are currently considering implementing complete or partial bans on Telegram. Although the political reasons vary, regulatory patterns are becoming more consistent. Governments usually cite national security, non-compliance with local laws, or risks to public order as reasons for control.

In this context, how Telegram responds has become a key variable. Although the triggers vary by jurisdiction, the fundamental issue is the same: Telegram's unwillingness or inability to meet local compliance requirements. In countries with stricter regulatory environments, tolerance for non-cooperative platforms is significantly lower.

However, there are signs that Telegram's strategy is shifting. After the arrest of CEO Pavel Durov, the company has taken steps to increase compliance. A notable example is its release of a transparency report, disclosing the IP addresses and phone numbers of violators, but only in jurisdictions with strong democratic institutions.

Although limited in scope, Telegram now shows a greater willingness to cooperate with government demands than in the past. This shift is expected to reduce the risk of immediate sanctions in major markets like the US.

5. What If Telegram Is Completely Banned?

The possibility of a global ban on Telegram remains low, but the concerns of governments worldwide are real and growing. If this were to happen, the initial user reaction would likely resemble the Vietnam case, with increased VPN usage. However, as mentioned above, this approach is only a short-term workaround.

If a complete ban were to occur, users would begin migrating to alternative services. As previously discussed, the most viable alternatives are not clones of Telegram or local messaging apps. Platforms with Telegram's region-neutral characteristics are more likely to gain attention.

Signal, which has seen a recent uptick in adoption, is a potential candidate. However, a stronger contender might be X's upcoming communication service, XChat. Given X's deep integration with the crypto community, XChat could leverage its existing user base for a strong market entry.

However, the more immediate risk lies in the potential impact on the TON Foundation. Although the TON Foundation is officially separate from Telegram, the two are closely related. Telegram's native T2E (Telegram to Earn) games have been central to the growth of the TON ecosystem. The ease of using TON wallets directly within the Telegram interface is also a key advantage.

Expanded ban measures would turn this integration into a risk point. If access to Telegram is blocked, the user acquisition and transaction flow of integrated TON applications would be immediately affected. The impact would still be present even if the blockchain continues to operate normally. Since the market views Telegram and TON as a unified platform, projects based on TON would face direct reputational and operational risks.