Telegram’s Bold Move: Embracing TON as Its Exclusive Web3 Partner
Telegram’s recent decision to limit its Mini App ecosystem exclusively to The Open Network (TON) has sparked vigorous discussion within the Web3 community. This announcement, made on January 21, 2024, solidified TON as Telegram’s sole blockchain partner. Consequently, Toncoin has become the only supported token for in-app purchases on the platform. While the move aligns with Telegram’s trajectory of integrating blockchain into its services, it has also opened the floodgates for concerns ranging from liquidity issues to accusations of contradicting Web3’s principles of decentralization.
A Controversial Strategy
The exclusive partnership with TON represents a significant pivot in Telegram’s Web3 strategy. Many were unsurprised by the deeper integration of TON, given its long-established ties to Telegram. However, the sudden and unilateral move to an exclusive policy triggered what Ilya Abugov, director of Helika Ventures, described as a “strong protectionist approach.” Critics argue that this exclusivity could stifle blockchain development, especially for projects struggling with TON’s inherent limitations.
One pressing issue is TON’s liquidity—or lack thereof. Abugov explained that this scarcity complicates the prospects of native token launches for game developers, potentially undermining broader blockchain adoption. For instance, the game Hamster Kombat (HMSTR) has already faced challenges. After its native token was partially delisted by Bybit on January 17, citing low liquidity, Hamster Kombat later announced plans to develop its own blockchain platform. However, Telegram’s exclusive branding with TON puts those plans in jeopardy, raising questions about the potential impacts of this policy on projects with similar ambitions.
Stability Concerns Emerge
Telegram’s decision to back TON exclusively also raises concerns about the network’s current maturity and readiness to handle increased demands from Telegram’s massive user base. “The network itself is still maturing, meaning that a large inflow of complex user behavior could raise stability concerns,” Abugov warned.
These apprehensions were echoed by Garrison Yang, co-founder of Web3 gaming studio Mirai Labs, who questioned the effectiveness of a TON-centric approach. Yang points out that TON lags behind competing chains like Solana and Base in performance. Furthermore, Telegram, with its vast user base, could have positioned itself to profit by supporting a broader range of blockchain ecosystems. Instead, Yang criticized the decision as a “scorched-earth approach,” forcing developers to rely exclusively on TON infrastructure—a tactic that, in his view, often results in missed opportunities for innovation and revenue.
Web3 Decentralization at Risk?
One of the sharpest critiques of Telegram’s TON-exclusive policy has come from groups like the Ice Open Network. In a January 22 post on X, the organization accused Telegram of abandoning the ideals of Web3, calling TON a manifestation of centralization rather than a champion of a free and open internet. Their post labeled TON as “The Closed Network,” drawing parallels with Big Tech’s monopolistic ecosystems, which limit user choices while maintaining a facade of openness. The Ice Open Network described this move as a stark departure from the decentralized principles that Web3 projects claim to uphold.
This sentiment stands in sharp contrast to Telegram’s consistent narrative of promoting freedom. It was only in May 2024 that Telegram co-founder and CEO Pavel Durov proclaimed the platform offered “more freedom than any other platform.” For many critics, this sudden pivot to exclusivity feels misaligned with the company’s earlier declarations.
The Case for a Balanced Approach
Several industry experts suggest that Telegram might have taken too drastic a path with its TON-only policy. Helika Ventures’ Abugov proposed an alternative: a *TON-first* strategy. Such an approach would enable Telegram to prioritize TON without fully excluding other blockchain ecosystems. He argued that accommodating multiple chains could have added critical third-party liquidity, benefiting both Telegram’s ecosystem and the broader blockchain community.
However, Telegram seems to have acted preemptively, fearing a potential loss of users to rival chains. Abugov cautioned this approach could backfire, placing unnecessary pressure on TON to quickly evolve into a more robust network while simultaneously deterring external liquidity and developers. Other chains, which might have contributed to the ecosystem’s growth, could now feel alienated.
The Road Ahead
As Telegram continues its push toward Web3 integration, the decision to tie its fortunes exclusively to TON carries both high stakes and significant risks. For TON, the challenge lies in swiftly addressing its liquidity and performance limitations, or it risks becoming a bottleneck rather than a conduit for innovation. Simultaneously, Telegram must balance its messaging to the Web3 community, ensuring that its focus on TON does not undermine the broader ideals of decentralization.
The coming months will reveal whether this bold step strengthens Telegram’s Web3 ambitions or becomes a cautionary tale of over-centralization in a decentralized world.
