Telegram against MetaMask It is not only a battle for Web3 traffic entrance, but also a battle between Web2 and native encryption.

Telegram vs MetaMask is a battle for web3 traffic and a clash between web2 and native encryption.

Original | Odaily Star Daily

Author | Fu Ruhe

Editor | Hao Fangzhou

What will the next bull market bring to Web3? No one has a definite answer to this question. CZ once said, “The next bull market is likely to surpass CeFi in terms of the scale of DeFi.” If CZ’s words can come true, then the decentralized Web3 gateway also has the potential to gradually surpass CEX and accommodate a larger number of new users.

• SubDAO Divide and Conquer, a key step in the endgame of MakerDAO
• LianGuai Daily | JPEX involved amount has reached HKD 1.2 billion; Cryptocurrency startup Bastion completes $25 million financing.
• How did North Korean hackers use LinkedIn and social engineering to steal $3.4 billion in cryptocurrency?

In the previous cycle, MetaMask was undoubtedly the representative of the decentralized Web3 gateway, followed closely by a number of wallet projects, chasing after the leader in the race with features such as multi-chain support and user experience optimization.

While everyone is looking for the next MetaMask in wallets, Odaily Star Daily has discovered that Telegram, with 800 million active users, is unintentionally eyeing this track and challenging MetaMask’s position.

Although Telegram is not rooted in Web3, it is favored by Web3 users due to its anti-censorship characteristics. Not only do most project teams use it as the main base for their communities, but the rapid rise of bots in recent months has also made Telegram gradually become a new way for new users to experience entering Web3.

MetaMask, on the other hand, has not been complacent. In the past year, it has launched a series of products and the Snap feature, especially after connecting with the fiat on-ramp and off-ramp channels, further consolidating its position as a Web3 gateway for traffic.

Both have advantages in becoming the general entrance to Web3. Who will have the upper hand in the future? In the following text, Odaily Star Daily will compare and explain the development direction and advantages of the two.

Telegram and MetaMask belong to different tracks: Telegram focuses on instant messaging and belongs to a social-driven model; MetaMask focuses on Web3 wallets and belongs to an asset management-driven model. This is similar to the competition between WeChat and Alipay for traffic in the past. Although they have different genes, both have the potential to occupy the majority of Web3 traffic.

Telegram: Understanding user needs by bypassing wallets with bots

Telegram currently has 800 million active users. However, the Web3 community accounts for a small percentage of these 800 million users, about nearly 10 million people. In recent months, with the rapid development of diverse bot tools, it has lowered the entry barrier for new users to participate in Web3 and gradually transformed Telegram from a single social application to a multifunctional Web3 gateway. (It can also be said that Telegram is “passively” accessing Web3.)

The popularity of Unibot has driven the entire Telegram Bot sector, and its popularity remains high. In the early days, there were many types of Telegram Bots, such as token exchange, copy trading, analysis, automatic airdrop trading, asset cross-chain, etc., with different projects focusing on different areas.

However, as time has passed, DEX bots have become mainstream in the Bot sector due to their functions that traditional DEX lacks (such as attacking new listings, countering MEV, and copy trading).

Nowadays, DEX bots have formed a three-way competition – Unibot, BananaGun, and MaestroBot have divided the market share of DEX bots.

Meanwhile, on September 13th, Telegram announced that it would choose the TON network as its Web3 infrastructure, and TON will also launch the TONSLianGuaice wallet to serve Telegram users.

In general, Telegram gradually weakens the position of the wallet in the Web3 gateway through bots, allowing users to reduce the interaction process between the wallet and on-chain applications to some extent; and cooperates with the TON network to layout in the wallet field. So far, Telegram uses bots to counterattack MetaMask.

MetaMask: a combination of defense and offense

MetaMask is the main gateway for most people to participate in Web3. According to data disclosed on the Consensys official website: MetaMask has a total of 100 million users, associated with 17,000 DApps, and has a daily interaction volume of 244,000 times. Relying on Ethereum’s dominant advantage on the public chain and with the support of the Ethereum Foundation, MetaMask is the undisputed leader in the hot wallet field.

In the early days, MetaMask was just a tool for managing assets, or more like middleware for participating in on-chain activities. Users deposit funds into exchanges to buy tokens and interact with on-chain projects through MetaMask. However, in the past year, MetaMask has made continuous new moves, aiming to gradually transition from a single-ecosystem wallet to a Web3 universal gateway, and from a more invisible infrastructure layer to a more visible product layer.

Since September of last year, MetaMask has launched the MetaMask portfolio DApp, which provides a combination of related MetaMask products, combining most of the functions of on-chain activities together to form a unified UI interface, allowing new users entering Web3 to participate in on-chain activities without having to understand different functions of on-chain applications, such as token exchanges, cross-chain bridges, staking, etc. Especially with the recently added deposit and withdrawal channels, the entire process of entering and exiting Web3 is connected, extending the time users spend on MetaMask.

What truly makes MetaMask a Web3 universal gateway is the recently launched Snap feature, which is a plugin platform for user-customized wallet functions launched by MetaMask. Major project parties can create related Snaps on the MetaMask Flask without permission, integrating their own functions into MetaMask. Currently, there are 34 Snaps created by third parties, which can realize cross-platform transaction insights, notifications, and interoperability functions.

Snap enhances the extensibility of MetaMask, allowing it to spread from EVM-related public chains and L2 ecosystems to non-EVM public chain ecosystems. It expands its service range and improves MetaMask’s functional capabilities. At the same time, by adopting the integration of XMTP Snap, MetaMask also has certain instant messaging capabilities.

MetaMask broadens its channels for obtaining traffic through product combinations and Snaps, and reduces the complexity for users to choose to participate in different chains.

Facing the attacks from Telegram and other wallets, MetaMask consolidates its position by expanding its service range.

Comparatively, Telegram and MetaMask adopt different means to seize Web3 traffic in different exclusive fields. They may not have direct competition, but the key point of a Web3 universal traffic entrance lies in being universal, and how to keep users with different needs on their own products is the core point of competition between the two.

Odaily Star Daily summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of Telegram and MetaMask as follows:

The advantage of Telegram lies in its traffic base of 800 million active users and the rapid development of Telegram Bots.

However, Telegram’s disadvantages are also quite obvious. Decentralization of bot projects is not high and there may be certain security risks. The social attributes and Web3 have not yet merged, and it feels like they are developing relatively independently.

The advantage of MetaMask lies in its precise user base and the establishment of entry and exit channels to connect the entire process of Web3. The establishment of Snap expands the coverage of MetaMask.

The disadvantage of MetaMask is that it mainly acquires new users from a single source, mostly organic. The combination of products and wallet association is relatively low, requiring time to educate users and having higher costs. Snap has a single function and has not attracted users to use it.

Perhaps, MetaMask did not anticipate that its opponent is not a wallet, but a player in the neighboring arena; perhaps, it is not important who ultimately wins, the Web3 industry hopes to attract fresh external traffic through competition among diverse products with different attributes.

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!