What would happen if Telegram were completely banned?

Author: Chi Anh, Ryan Yoon Source: Tiger Research Translation: Shan Oppa, Golden Finance

Abstract

• Platform Dependency Risk Exposure: In June 2025, Vietnam banned Telegram, resulting in a 45% drop in user activity in major crypto communities within days. This incident highlights a critical structural vulnerability: the crypto industry is highly dependent on an irreplaceable communication platform.
• Irreplaceable Platform: While Discord, Signal, and local chat applications have attempted to replace Telegram, they cannot replicate its unique combination of global reach, privacy protection, and "crypto-native" user experience. Currently, no other platform can compete with it in scale.
• Global Regulatory Pressure Rising: Under the guise of "digital sovereignty", governments around the world are intensifying scrutiny of Telegram, particularly due to its resistance to data sharing and monitoring. However, Telegram has recently begun to cooperate with regulators in certain jurisdictions, temporarily alleviating concerns in some key markets.

1. The Core Role of Telegram in the Cryptocurrency Market

Telegram has become the main communication platform for the global crypto community, with its strong privacy protection, scalable large group chat features, and Bot integration making it the preferred choice for KOLs and new projects to build communities. Market participants generally regard Telegram as the primary interaction channel.

Today, Telegram has deeply integrated into the infrastructure of the crypto market. People have become accustomed to its presence, but just imagine a conference like Token2049 without Telegram - attendees would only be able to exchange LinkedIn profiles, and that scenario would seem extremely unnatural. It can be said that it is now hard to imagine a crypto ecosystem without Telegram.

2. Vietnam Completely Bans Telegram

On May 21, 2025, at the request of the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Information and Communications issued Order No. 2312/CVT-CS, requiring all telecommunications service providers to completely block Telegram by June 2.

This move immediately disrupted Vietnam's crypto ecosystem. Vietnam is one of the countries with the highest number of Telegram users, and its local crypto industry heavily relies on the platform as the primary communication channel. After the ban, local crypto projects and users could hardly find viable alternatives. Although many turned to using VPNs to barely maintain access, this method is at best a temporary and unstable remedy.

For ordinary users with only moderate interest in cryptocurrency, accessing Telegram via VPN is too cumbersome, ultimately leading to a significant loss of users. In just a few days, the average traffic of the top ten mainstream cryptocurrency communities in Vietnam dropped by over 45%.

To address this situation, community organizers began to try and promote alternative platforms. The activity on the Vietnamese server on Discord has surged dramatically, and some communities have also tested local chat tools like Zalo in hopes of meeting users' needs for lightweight and simple interfaces.

However, no alternative platform can replicate the unique balance that Telegram offers in terms of usability, privacy protection, and native encryption features. Despite being banned, most users still rely on VPNs to use Telegram — a workaround, but not a fundamental alternative.

3. Are there any viable alternatives to Telegram?

The regulatory pressure on Telegram reveals a structural vulnerability in the crypto industry: a heavy reliance on a single communication platform.

As shown in the case of Vietnam, the first response after the ban was a significant increase in the use of VPNs. Although this is a short-term stopgap, it poses considerable usage obstacles for ordinary users. Despite the increasing participation of institutional investors in the crypto market, retail investors still account for a significant portion of market activity. At a time when the entire market is trying to break through the early user circle and achieve mass adoption, reliance on Telegram has instead become a barrier to further development.

As a result, the industry has begun actively searching for alternative platforms. Discord has become the preferred choice for multiple communities in Vietnam, as it supports real-time communication and is developer-friendly. However, it lacks the "mobile-first" simplicity that Telegram offers. Another candidate, Signal, is known for its strong security features, but its tool support in "crypto-native" use cases is limited, making it difficult to become a complete substitute.

Other messaging apps like Zalo or WhatsApp are usually limited to users in specific regions, which is inherently incompatible with the global cross-border communication required by the crypto ecosystem.

Ultimately, the crypto industry has yet to find a true alternative to Telegram. The technical advantages of Telegram, such as its anonymity, privacy, and Bot integration, further solidify its dominant position, while the root of the problem lies in structural deficiencies:

There is currently no globally widely adopted communication platform that can operate seamlessly across borders. Due to the varying communication preferences of users in different countries, finding a unified platform that can meet the global needs of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem remains a significant challenge.

Telegram plays a unique role in the communication field: it does not dominate any national market and is not the primary app for most people, but it often serves as a "second choice" in multiple regions. This "secondary yet widespread" usage status grants Telegram a de facto cross-regional neutrality, and it is this "regional independence" that makes it nearly irreplaceable.

4. Telegram Faces Increasing Regulatory Risks

Although Telegram currently has no viable alternatives, governments in various countries, including Vietnam, are increasing their regulatory efforts under the name of "digital sovereignty."

The main reason is that Telegram adheres to a strong privacy policy and generally refuses to share user data with governments, with only a few major jurisdictions as exceptions. For most governments, the inability to monitor encrypted communications on Telegram remains a core issue.

These concerns are gradually evolving into actual regulatory actions. Some countries have adopted three strategies to impose restrictions on Telegram:

1. Comprehensive ban, and promote local alternative platforms;
2. Temporary Block usually due to specific events (such as legal violations or improper dissemination during elections);
3. Selective Filtering, which allows access to Telegram but blocks specific channels or limits their speed.

These precedents suggest that more restrictions may be introduced in the future. Several countries are already evaluating Telegram's blanket or partial bans. While the political rationale for the ban varies from country to country, the regulatory path is increasingly converging: national security, non-compliance with local laws, or public order risks are the top three grounds for government pressure.

In this context, Telegram's response strategy is becoming a key variable. Although the triggers differ in different countries, the core issue is that Telegram is unable or unwilling to meet local compliance requirements. In countries with stricter regulatory environments, the government's tolerance for "non-cooperative platforms" is noticeably lower.

However, Telegram's stance has softened. Since CEO Pavel Durov was arrested, the company has begun taking steps to improve its compliance image. For example, its recently released transparency report disclosed the IP addresses and phone numbers of some violators—though only in jurisdictions with strong democratic systems.

Although the scope of these measures is limited, Telegram is clearly more willing to respond to government requests than in the past. This change is expected to reduce the immediate risk of sanctions it faces in key markets such as the United States.

5. What will happen if Telegram is completely banned?

Although the likelihood of a comprehensive global ban on Telegram is low, the concerns of various governments are deepening. If such a scenario were to occur, users' initial reactions may be similar to those in Vietnam: a massive rush towards VPNs. However, as mentioned above, this is only a short-term fix and not a long-term solution.

If Telegram is completely banned, users will begin to migrate to alternative services. As mentioned earlier, platforms with "regional neutrality" attributes are more likely to gain widespread adoption than certain clone products or localized chat tools with similar features.

Signal is a potential candidate with significant recent user growth; But a stronger contender could be XChat — the upcoming messaging service from X (formerly Twitter). Due to X's deep integration in the crypto community, XChat may be able to leverage its existing user base to quickly cut in.

However, the more direct risk lies in the potential damage to the TON Foundation. Although Telegram operates independently from TON officially, the two are closely related. Many Telegram-native T2E (Talk-to-Earn) games have driven the development of the TON ecosystem; and the seamless integration of the TON wallet with Telegram is also a significant advantage.

As a result, the policy of banning Telegram has spread, turning this deep binding into a risk point: once access is cut off, users' ability to obtain and trade integrated applications on TON will be immediately affected. Even if the underlying blockchain continues to operate normally, the market's perception of Telegram and TON as "one entity" will also bring about credibility and operational risks.

Although the possibility of Telegram being banned globally remains low, the entire cryptocurrency industry must face a reality: viable alternatives are extremely limited. From a broader perspective, the core infrastructure of the crypto ecosystem relies not only on Telegram but also has multiple "single point risks". If these structural vulnerabilities are not addressed, the entire industry will constantly face the threat of sudden external shocks.

The direction for the future is already very clear: reducing excessive dependence, promoting platform diversification, is no longer a choice but a survival strategy.