The Hidden Risks of the Crypto Assets Market: The Dangers of Reliance on Communication Platforms

This report analyzes the potential risks arising from the over-reliance of the Crypto Assets market on a single communication platform, and discusses the structural vulnerabilities exposed by this dependence, using Vietnam's ban on a certain communication software as an example.

Core Points

1. Platform dependency risks emerge: In June 2025, after Vietnam banned a certain well-known messaging software, user activity in major Crypto Assets communities plummeted by 45% within a few days. This highlights a structural vulnerability in the encryption industry’s severe reliance on a single, irreplaceable messaging platform.

2. Lack of Alternatives: Although the market has explored other communication tools such as Discord and Signal as alternatives, none can fully replicate the platform's advantages in global coverage, privacy protection, and native encryption user experience. Currently, there is no other platform that can compete with it on a large scale.

3. Increasing global regulatory pressure: Governments around the world are strengthening scrutiny of this communication platform in the name of "digital sovereignty," targeting its resistance to data sharing and monitoring. However, the platform has recently begun to cooperate with authorities in certain specific regions, temporarily alleviating some concerns in key markets.

The Role of Communication Platforms in the Crypto Assets Market

With its strong privacy protection, scalable group chat, and bot integration features, a well-known communication platform has become a major communication channel for the global Crypto Assets community. These features make it the preferred choice for opinion leaders and new projects to build communities. Market participants widely use this platform as their primary interaction channel.

The platform now plays a core role in the structure of the Crypto Assets market. Its level of deep integration is such that it is hard to imagine significant industry activities without it. At this stage, an encryption ecosystem without this platform is almost unimaginable.

Analysis of the Ban in Vietnam

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 a certain communication service domestically by June 2.

This move immediately triggered chaos across Vietnam's entire Crypto Assets ecosystem. Vietnam is one of the countries with the largest user base for this communication platform globally, and its domestic Crypto Assets sector heavily relies on it as the primary communication channel. The ban has left local Crypto Assets projects and users without viable alternatives. Although many have turned to VPNs to maintain access, this workaround is at best a temporary and incomplete solution.

For ordinary users who are only moderately interested in Crypto Assets, accessing through a VPN has proven to be too inconvenient. As a result, many people have completely withdrawn from participation. In just a few days, the average views of the top ten major Crypto Asset communities in Vietnam dropped by more than 45%.

In response, community organizers began to explore and promote alternative platforms. The activity level 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, these alternatives cannot replicate the unique balance that the platform offers in terms of usability, privacy, and native encryption features. Despite the ban, most users still rely on the platform through VPNs - which is a workaround, not an alternative.

Discussion of Alternatives

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

As the case in Vietnam shows, the immediate response to the ban has been the widespread use of VPNs. While this provides a short-term workaround, it presents significant obstacles for ordinary users. Despite the growing institutional participation in Crypto Assets, retail investors still account for a large portion of market activity. During this transformative period as the market seeks to move beyond its early user base, reliance on the platform has become an obstacle to broader adoption.

This has prompted the industry to actively seek alternative platforms. Discord has become the preferred solution for many communities in Vietnam, as it offers real-time communication and a developer-friendly environment. However, it lacks the mobile-first simplicity offered by that platform. Another candidate, Signal, promotes strong security features but provides limited tools for native encryption use cases—making it an incomplete alternative.

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

Ultimately, the encryption industry has yet to find a viable alternative to this platform. While its technological advantages, such as anonymity, privacy, and robot integration, have led it to maintain a dominant position, the fundamental issue lies in its structure.

Currently, there is no universally adopted communication platform that can operate seamlessly across borders. Due to differing communication preferences in various countries, finding a single alternative that meets the global needs of the Crypto Assets ecosystem remains a significant challenge.

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

Increasing Regulatory Risks

Despite the lack of viable alternatives, governments around the world, including Vietnam, are strengthening their scrutiny of the communication platform in the name of "digital sovereignty."

This is largely due to the platform'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 encryption communications on the platform remains a core concern.

These concerns are increasingly being translated into regulatory actions. Countries that have already taken measures against the platform typically follow one of three strategies. The first is a comprehensive ban, often accompanied by initiatives 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 application but blocks specific channels or limits its speed.

The precedents set by these cases indicate that there may be more restrictions in the future. Several countries are currently considering implementing comprehensive or partial bans on the platform. While the political reasons vary from country to country, the regulatory models are becoming more consistent. Governments typically cite national security, non-compliance with local laws, or risks to public order as reasons for their controls.

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

However, there are signs that the platform's strategy is shifting. Following the arrest of the CEO, the company has begun taking steps to enhance compliance. A notable example is its release of a transparency report disclosing the IP addresses and phone numbers of violators, but this is limited to jurisdictions with strong democratic systems.

Although the scope is limited, the platform now shows more willingness to comply with government requirements than in the past. This shift is expected to reduce the risk of facing immediate sanctions in major markets such as the United States.

Potential Impacts of a Complete Ban

The possibility of a global ban on this communication platform remains low, but the concerns of governments around the world are real and growing. If this situation occurs, users' initial response may be similar to that in the case of Vietnam, namely an increase in VPN usage. However, as mentioned above, this approach is merely a short-term workaround.

If a comprehensive ban occurs, users will start migrating to alternative services. As discussed earlier, the most viable alternatives are not clones of the platform or local communication applications. Platforms that have the characteristic of regional neutrality in the platform 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 a messaging service that a certain social platform is about to launch. Given the deep integration of this social platform with the Crypto Assets community, its new service can leverage its existing user base for a strong market entry.

However, the more direct risk lies in the potential impact on a certain foundation. Although the foundation is officially separate from the communication platform, the two are closely related. The platform's native T2E (Telegram to Earn) games have always been at the core of the foundation's ecosystem growth. The ability to easily use relevant wallets directly within the platform interface is also a key advantage.

The expansion of the ban measures has turned this integration into a risk point. If access to the communication platform is blocked, the user acquisition and transaction flow of applications related to the integrated blockchain will be immediately affected. Even if the blockchain continues to operate normally, the impact still exists. Since the market views the communication platform and the related blockchain as a unified platform, projects based on that blockchain directly face reputational and operational risks.

Although the likelihood of a global ban on this communication platform is low, the industry must face a reality: viable alternatives are limited. More broadly, the Crypto Assets ecosystem relies not only on this platform but also on several single service points within 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 excessive dependence and achieving platform diversification is no longer optional. It is a necessary survival strategy.