Hidden risks in the cryptocurrency market: What would happen if Telegram went down?

By Chi Anh and Ryan Yoon

This report, written by Tiger Research , analyzes the hidden risks posed by the cryptocurrency market’s irreplaceable reliance on Telegram and examines the structural vulnerabilities exposed by Vietnam’s Telegram ban.

Summary of key points

• Exposed platform dependency risks: In June 2025, Vietnam’s ban on Telegram caused user activity in major cryptocurrency communities to drop by 45% within a few days. The incident highlighted a key structural vulnerability: the crypto industry’s heavy reliance on a single, irreplaceable communication platform.

• Lack of viable alternatives: Despite exploring alternatives such as Discord, Signal, and native messaging apps, none have been able to replicate Telegram’s combination of global reach, privacy features, and native crypto user experience. No other platform currently matches this combination of features at scale.

• Global regulatory pressure is rising: Governments around the world are stepping up scrutiny of Telegram in the name of “digital sovereignty” over its stance against data sharing and surveillance. However, Telegram has recently begun cooperating with authorities in certain specific jurisdictions, temporarily alleviating concerns in some key markets.

1. Telegram’s role in the cryptocurrency market

Telegram has become the main communication platform for the global crypto community with its strong privacy protection, scalable group chat and robot integration features. These features make it the first choice for KOLs and new projects to build communities. Market participants actively use Telegram as their main channel for interaction.

Telegram plays a central role in the structure of the cryptocurrency market today. Its presence is often taken for granted, but the extent of its deep integration becomes apparent when imagining a major event like Token2049 without Telegram — participants would swap LinkedIn profiles instead. Such a scenario would be clearly out of place. At this stage, a crypto ecosystem without Telegram is unimaginable.

2. Vietnam completely bans Telegram

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

On May 21, 2025, at the request of the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Information and Communications of Vietnam issued Order No. 2312/CVT-CS, instructing all telecom operators to block Telegram services in the country before June 2.

The move immediately caused chaos throughout Vietnam's crypto ecosystem. Vietnam has one of the largest user bases of Telegram in the world, and like many other markets, its domestic crypto scene relies heavily on the platform as a primary communication channel. The ban left local crypto projects and users without a viable alternative. While many turned to VPNs (virtual private networks) to maintain access, this workaround was a temporary, incomplete solution at best.

For regular users with only a moderate interest in cryptocurrencies, accessing Telegram via VPN proved to be too inconvenient. As a result, many people quit participating altogether. In just a few days, the average pageviews of the top ten major crypto communities in Vietnam dropped by more than 45% .

 The community is rushing to Discord as an alternative platform. Source: Telegram

In response, community organizers began exploring and promoting alternative platforms. Vietnamese servers on Discord saw a surge in activity, while some communities experimented with local messaging apps like Zalo, which cater to users seeking a lighter, simpler interface.

However, none of these alternatives can replicate Telegram’s unique balance of usability, privacy, and native encryption. Despite the ban, most users still rely on Telegram through a VPN — a workaround, not a replacement.

3. Are there any viable alternatives to Telegram?

Regulatory pressure on Telegram has revealed a structural vulnerability in the crypto industry: its heavy reliance on a single messaging platform.

As the case of Vietnam shows, the immediate response to the ban was the widespread use of VPNs. While this provided a short-term workaround, it created significant barriers for the average user. Despite the growth of institutional participation in cryptocurrencies, retail investors still account for a large portion of market activity. During a transitional period when the market is trying to move beyond its early user base, reliance on Telegram has become a barrier to wider adoption.

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

 Source: Similarweb

Other messaging apps, such as Zalo or WhatsApp, tend to have user bases limited to specific regions. This makes them incompatible from the outset 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, have contributed to its continued dominance, the underlying problems are structural.

There is currently no universally adopted messaging platform that can operate seamlessly across borders. As messaging preferences vary from country to country, finding a single alternative that meets the global needs of the crypto ecosystem remains a huge challenge.

Telegram occupies a rare position in the communications landscape. It does not dominate any single national market, and for many users it is not their primary application. However, it is often the second most used messaging tool in a wide range of different regions. This unique position as a universal secondary platform gives Telegram a de facto neutrality across national borders. It is this region-agnostic status that makes it so difficult to replace.

4. Growing regulatory risks surrounding Telegram

Despite the lack of viable alternatives, governments around the world, including Vietnam, are increasing scrutiny of Telegram in the name of “digital sovereignty.”

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

These concerns are increasingly being translated into regulatory action. Countries that have taken action against Telegram generally follow one of three strategies. The first is a full ban, often accompanied by a move to promote domestic alternatives. The second involves temporary blocks in response to specific events, such as legal noncompliance or election-related tensions. The third is selective filtering, where the government allows access to the app but blocks specific channels or limits their speed.

The precedents set by these cases suggest that more restrictions may be in the future. Several countries are currently considering full or partial bans on Telegram. While the political reasons vary from country to country, the regulatory pattern is becoming more consistent. Governments often cite national security, non-compliance with local laws, or risks to public order as reasons for regulation.

In this context, how Telegram responds is becoming a key variable. Although the trigger points vary by jurisdiction, the underlying problem is the same: Telegram is unwilling or unable to meet local compliance requirements. In countries with stricter regulatory environments, tolerance for uncooperative platforms is significantly reduced.

However, there are signs that Telegram's strategy is shifting. After the arrest of CEO Pavel Durov, the company has begun taking steps to improve compliance. One notable example is that it publishes a transparency report that discloses the IP addresses and phone numbers of violators, but this is limited to jurisdictions with strong democratic systems.

Although limited in scope, Telegram is now showing more willingness to cooperate with government requests than in the past, a shift that is expected to reduce the risk of immediate sanctions in major markets such as the United States.

5. What would happen if Telegram was completely banned?

The likelihood of a global ban on Telegram remains low, but the concerns of governments are real and growing. If this were to happen, the initial reaction from users would likely be similar to the Vietnam case, with an increase in VPN usage. However, as mentioned above, this approach is only a short-term workaround.

 Source: X

If a blanket ban occurs, users will begin migrating to alternative services. As discussed before, the most viable alternatives are not Telegram clones or native messaging apps. Those platforms that have the region-neutral nature of Telegram are more likely to gain traction.

Signal, which has seen an uptick in adoption recently, is a potential candidate. However, a stronger contender may be X’s upcoming messaging 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 is the potential impact on the TON Foundation. While the TON Foundation is officially separate from Telegram, the two are closely related. Telegram's native T2E (Telegram to Earn) game has been central to the growth of the TON ecosystem. The ease of using the TON wallet directly within the Telegram interface is also a key advantage.

The expansion of the ban turns this integration into a risk point. If access to Telegram is blocked, user acquisition and transaction flow of applications integrating TON will be immediately affected. Even if the blockchain continues to operate normally, the impact will remain. Because the market views Telegram and TON as a unified platform, projects based on TON face direct reputational and operational risks.

While a global ban on Telegram is unlikely, the industry must face a reality: there are limited viable alternatives. More broadly, the crypto ecosystem relies not only on Telegram, but also on multiple single service points in its infrastructure. If these structural vulnerabilities are not addressed, the industry will continue to be exposed to sudden, external shocks.

The path forward is clear . Reducing overdependence and diversifying platforms is no longer optional. It is a necessary survival strategy.