Hidden Risks in the Crypto Assets Market: What Happens if Telegram Goes Down?

Authors: Chi Anh and Ryan Yoon

This report, written by Tiger Research, analyzes the hidden risks brought about by the cryptocurrency market’s dependence on Telegram and examines the structural vulnerabilities exposed by the Telegram ban in Vietnam.

Key Points Summary

• Exposure of Platform Dependency Risks: In June 2025, Vietnam’s ban on Telegram led to a 45% drop in user activity in major cryptocurrency communities within a few days. This event highlights a critical structural vulnerability: the cryptocurrency industry is heavily reliant on a single, irreplaceable communication platform.
• Lack of viable alternatives: Although alternatives such as Discord, Signal, and local messaging apps have been explored, none can replicate the combination of global coverage, privacy features, and the native encrypted user experience that Telegram offers. Currently, there is no other platform that can match this combination of features at scale.
• Rising Global Regulatory Pressure: Governments around the world are strengthening scrutiny of Telegram in the name of “digital sovereignty,” targeting its resistance to data sharing and surveillance. However, Telegram has recently begun to cooperate with authorities in certain specific jurisdictions, temporarily alleviating some concerns in key markets.

1. The Role of Telegram in the Cryptocurrency Market

Telegram has become a major communication platform for the global crypto community thanks to its strong privacy protection, scalable group chats, and bot integration features. These characteristics make it the preferred choice for KOLs and new projects to build communities. Market participants actively use Telegram as their primary channel for interaction.

Telegram now plays a central role in the structure of the cryptocurrency market. Its presence is often taken for granted, but when imagining a significant event (such as Token2049) without Telegram, the depth of its integration becomes apparent—participants would turn to exchanging LinkedIn profiles instead. Such a scenario is clearly out of place. At this stage, a cryptocurrency ecosystem without Telegram is hard to imagine.

2. Vietnam bans Telegram completely

Official Telegram ban order issued on May 21. Source: thuvienphapluat

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

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

For ordinary users with only a moderate interest in cryptocurrency, accessing Telegram via VPN has proven to be too inconvenient. As a result, many people have completely withdrawn from participation. In just a few days, the average viewership of the top ten cryptocurrency communities in Vietnam has decreased by over 45%.

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

In response, community organizers began to explore and promote alternative platforms. The activity on the Vietnamese server on Discord surged, while some communities attempted to use local messaging applications like Zalo, aiming to cater to users seeking a lighter and simpler interface.

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

3. Are there viable alternatives to Telegram?

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

As demonstrated by the Vietnam case, the immediate response to the ban has been the widespread use of VPNs. While this offers a short-term workaround, it poses significant obstacles for ordinary users. Despite the increasing level of institutional participation in cryptocurrency, retail investors still account for a large portion of market activity. During this transitional period as the market tries to move beyond its early user base, reliance on Telegram has become an obstacle to broader adoption.

This encourages the industry to actively seek alternative platforms. Discord has become the preferred solution 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, promotes strong security features but offers limited tools for native encryption use cases—making it an incomplete alternative.

Source: Similarweb

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

Ultimately, the crypto industry has yet to find a viable alternative to Telegram. While its technological advantages, such as anonymity, privacy, and bot integration, have allowed it to maintain its dominant position, the fundamental issue lies in its structural nature.

Currently, there is no widely adopted communication platform that can operate seamlessly across borders. Due to 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 field of communication. It does not dominate any single national market, and for many users, it is not their primary application. However, in many different regions, it is often 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-independent status that makes it so hard to replace.

4. Increasing Regulatory Risks Surrounding Telegram

Despite the lack of viable alternatives, governments around the world, including Vietnam, are strengthening their 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 as exceptions). For many governments, the inability to monitor encrypted communications on the platform remains a core concern.

These concerns are increasingly being translated into regulatory actions. Countries that have taken measures against Telegram typically follow one of three strategies. The first is a comprehensive ban, usually accompanied by efforts to promote domestic alternatives. The second involves implementing temporary blocks in response to specific events, such as legal non-compliance 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.

These precedents set by these cases indicate that there may be more restrictions in the future. Several countries are currently considering a full or partial ban on Telegram. Although the political reasons vary from country to country, the regulatory approach is becoming more consistent. Governments typically use national security, non-compliance with local laws, or public order risks as reasons for control.

In this context, how Telegram responds is becoming a key variable. Although the triggering points vary by jurisdiction, the fundamental issue remains the same: Telegram is unwilling or unable to meet local compliance requirements. In countries with stricter regulatory environments, tolerance for non-cooperative platforms has significantly decreased.

However, there are signs that Telegram’s strategy is shifting. Following the arrest of CEO Pavel Durov, the company has begun to take steps to improve compliance. A notable example is its publication of a transparency report that discloses the IP addresses and phone numbers of violators, but this is limited to jurisdictions with strong democratic institutions.

Despite its limited scope, Telegram now shows more willingness to cooperate with government demands than in the past. This shift is expected to reduce the risk of facing immediate sanctions in major markets such as the United States.

5. What will happen if Telegram is completely banned?

The possibility of a global ban on Telegram remains low, but the concerns of various governments are real and increasing. If this happens, users’ initial reaction may be similar to the case in Vietnam, where the use of VPNs increased. However, as mentioned above, this method is just a short-term workaround.

Source: X

If a comprehensive ban occurs, users will begin to migrate to alternative services. As discussed earlier, the most viable alternatives are not clones of Telegram or local messaging apps. Platforms that possess regionally neutral characteristics in the Telegram space are more likely to gain attention.

Recently, the adoption rate of Signal has increased, making it a potential candidate. However, a stronger competitor may be X’s upcoming communication service, XChat. Given X’s deep integration with the crypto community, XChat can leverage its existing user base for a strong market entry.

However, the more direct risk lies in the potential impact on the TON Foundation. Although the TON Foundation is officially separate from Telegram, the two are closely related. The native T2E (Telegram to Earn) games of Telegram have always been at the core of the growth of the TON ecosystem. The ability to easily use 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 for TON-integrated apps will be immediately affected. Even if the blockchain continues to function normally, the impact remains. As the market sees Telegram and TON as a unified platform, TON-based projects are directly exposed to reputational and operational risks.

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

The way forward is clear. Reducing excessive dependence and achieving platform diversification is no longer optional. It is a necessary survival strategy.