edit | Wu Blockchain about blockchain
Colin, founder of Wu Blockchain, and @WuliGy discussed in depth the recent development ofthe TON ecosystem. Binance has launched 5 TON ecosystem tokens in succession, which has attracted widespread attention from the market. @WuliGy has worked in research and data analysis at mainstream exchanges and has long observed and thought about memes and TON. We discussed the characteristics of the tokens currently launched, why exchanges love the TON ecosystem so much, and the projects and trends with great prospects in the future.
Audio transcription is done by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the full podcast:
Microcosm:
https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episodes/66e6a67e5ca6d0ace31e4f67
Youtube:
Why did Binance launch multiple TON tokens in succession?
Colin:
Today we are discussing some recent developments in the TON ecosystem, especially Binance’s recent consecutive launch of five TON-related tokens, which has attracted widespread attention in the market. This is indeed rare in Binance ’s history of listing tokens. Can you first talk about why Binance has launched so many TON-related tokens in a row?
WuliGy:
I think the entire TON ecosystem has received a big boost since Notcoin. TON is backed by Telegram, which has a very large user base, and Notcoin has set off a craze for Telegram mini apps.
Many users, especially "money-grabbing" users, have flocked to the TON ecosystem. For exchanges, especially the leading exchanges, their main goal now is to attract new users. The mini apps of the TON ecosystem are backed by Telegram and have a huge number of users. For example, from Notcoin to Dogs, to the recently disclosed Hamster and Catizen, Hamster is said to have more than 250 million users, and Catizen has exceeded 10 million users in May just a few months after its launch. Therefore, for exchanges, what they value is to attract new users through these tokens and drive business growth.
At the same time, this is also a long-term strategy for exchanges. The ecosystem behind these tokens has great development potential, especially in regions like Nigeria, CIS, and some South Asian countries where credit cards are not yet popular. We usually call these regions "third world" residents, who do not yet widely use crypto payments or credit card payments. As these regions gradually accept Web3 and crypto payments, their future development potential is huge.
Therefore, I think Binance, as well as exchanges like Bybit and Bitget , all start from this perspective. Simply put, because there are new users behind these tokens, exchanges need to use these new users to drive business growth.
Differences between Notcoin, Dogs, Hamster, and Catizen
Colin:
You usually pay attention to a lot of projects in the TON ecosystem. What do you think of the projects that have been launched now? I understand that Notcoin seems to be the first project launched by TON, right? And Dogs seems to be a project that suddenly popped up. As we all know, Catizen is made by Chinese people and focuses on games. It feels richer and more industrialized. Hamster is also a game project, claiming to have a large number of users, said to have 300 million users. Even the Iranian government has criticized this project, saying that it has caused the whole country to fall into a game craze. What do you think of these projects?
WuliGy:
After Notcoin was launched on Binance, it played a catalytic role. In fact, TON has been promoting ecological development since the end of March this year, announcing TON ecological incentives with a total value of more than 100 million US dollars, covering four tracks, including telegraph and on-chain infrastructure. Through early testing, they found that the user growth of TON was very significant, so they held public leagues every month. The launch of Notcoin was more like a blockbuster, igniting the entire Telegram mini apps track. Through its powerful wealth effect, Notcoin attracted a large number of users to actively participate in the interaction of mini apps, and then led to the development of projects such as Dogs, YEScoin, and TapSwap.
As for Dogs, it is special because it is Telegram's Meme coin. It has no game logic in essence. As long as you have a Telegram account, you can claim Dogs points. We all know that the core of the public chain is the issuance of assets and accounting, and Dogs is the first project to issue points through the Telegram platform, which is equivalent to distributing tokens through Telegram. This model quickly detonated the entire Crypto traffic after its launch. The media reported that its daily user increase reached one million, and the number of users in the points pool reached four to five million during the TGE.
As for Catizen, it feels a bit like "raising cats online" and combines some of Pinduoduo's gameplay. It has a turntable function to encourage users to bring in new customers, which is a bit like Pinduoduo's "cut one knife" model. In this way, you can get tokens, open boxes, etc. Catizen quickly formed a flywheel for business growth.
Finally, Hamster Kombat is a very early project. It emphasizes that you play the role of CEO and run the project by completing daily tasks. They have strong CIS regional resources to promote the development of the project. Currently, Hamster Kombat should be the project with the largest number of users among Telegram mini apps.
The difference between these four projects lies in their operating models and user growth paths.
How to view the influence of Russian KOLs and communities
Colin:
I heard that Notcoin was jointly promoted by a dozen of the largest KOLs in the Russian-speaking area, because their main position is on Telegram. Telegram is different from Twitter and WeChat, which we often use. A WeChat group can only have 500 people at most and is easily blocked, but the community capacity of Telegram can reach more than 100,000 people, and it can be maintained through group management and robots, similar to Discord. This makes me think that the community power in the Russian-speaking area may be much stronger than we think. I don’t know much about the Russian community and the ecosystem of Telegram, so I don’t know what you think of the power of Russian KOLs and large communities in it.
WuliGy:
There is indeed a very strong traffic matrix. As far as I know, although projects like Notcoin, Dogs, and Blum are initiated by different companies, the project owners know each other and even often eat together, so they have strong resources. As you mentioned, Telegram is different from WeChat. The capacity of WeChat groups is only 500 people, while Telegram groups can have hundreds of thousands of people. This scale allows them to effectively activate private domain traffic.
These big KOLs can attract initial traffic through cash rewards and other means, and then gradually promote project development through financing and other means to gradually roll out the project. The core is that they have strong traffic resources and private domain traffic. Due to TON's open league policy, these KOLs began to actively participate in the promotion of Telegram mini apps, and promoted the successful development of these Tier 1 projects by diverting traffic to each other.
TON Open League Operation Mechanism and Reward Method
Colin:
It seems that the TON Foundation or some of the core projects launched by TON itself have a great driving force on the ecosystem. Can you introduce TON's competition policy in more detail?
WuliGy:
In fact, the influence will be greater in the early stage. The operating mechanism of TON's public league is as follows: it will set up a prize pool, for example, there is a reward fund of 3 million US dollars in this period, and then these funds will be allocated to different sectors of the TON ecosystem, such as Meme sector, Telegram sector, Dapp sector, DeFi sector, etc. Some leading projects will be selected for each track, and Telegram mini apps is one of them.
They will rank projects based on the number of Telegram users, the number of users on the blockchain, or the number of paid members. Projects with higher rankings will receive more bonuses from the prize pool. Therefore, many projects, especially some "click to make money" games, are not just for simple user participation, but to meet the rules of the open league and get more rewards.
Therefore, the core of the open league is to support the top projects in each track on the TON chain. After these projects receive funding, they can better carry out community operations and project promotion. As an important track, Telegram mini apps will be ranked according to the project's traffic, the number of user-linked wallets, the number of on-chain transactions, etc., and finally share the prize pool.
Potential of future Tier 1 projects such as TapSwap, Blum, and YEScoin
Colin:
You mentioned earlier that in addition to the projects that have already been launched on Binance, there are some projects that may become Tier 1 in the future. Can you introduce these projects in more detail?
WuliGy:
TapSwap is a very popular project in the CIS region. If you pay attention to the weekly or monthly Google hot search list, you will find that TapSwap and Blum almost always occupy the top few hot searches. They have a unique mechanism. There is a daily code every day, that is, a daily task. Users need to complete the task and search for answers to share the prize pool. This model was first promoted by the Hamster project. In order to maintain user stickiness, users will participate in this interaction every day, which also drives the search popularity of these projects in the CIS region to remain high.
Another project worth paying attention to is YEScoin, which is known to everyone as being initiated by a Chinese team. Blum is also an important Tier 1 project. In addition, in the Tier 2 level, there are some projects that are benchmarked against Dogs, such as Cats and Rocky Rabbit, and X Empire, originally called Musk Empire. This project has a close cooperation with Bybit, so you can pay more attention to it.
We also discussed last time that Catizen will be launched around September 20, and Hamster will be launched at the end of the month. At that time, we speculated that Binance should choose at least one of the projects to launch. Especially the Dogs project, we mentioned that Bybit's Dogs pre-deposit reached more than 50 billion, while Binance's pre-deposit was around 40 billion, so Bybit surpassed Binance in attracting new users. This is why we thought at the time that Binance might launch another project similar to the Telegram ecosystem to supplement their user traffic, but unexpectedly, Binance chose to launch both projects in the end.
Subsequent development issues of TON ecological project
Colin:
Do you think that after these projects are launched, their new user acquisition effect will gradually weaken? Or when will the traffic be exhausted?
WuliGy:
I think if projects like Catizen and Hamster can run smoothly, their effects may be reflected through the performance within the exchange. Some Tier 2 or Tier 3 projects may attract 50,000 to 100,000 new users, but as these high-traffic and high-heat Telegram mini apps are launched, the effect of attracting new users will gradually decrease. For example, Dogs has 40 to 50 million points users, which may be converted into about 10 million exchange users, and then only 3 to 4 million users can actually be imported into Binance.
When projects like Catizen or Hamster are launched, the rate of new users will further decrease, and the exchange’s interest in such projects may gradually weaken. I think after Catizen and Hamster are launched, exchanges may be less willing to list similar projects.
Colin:
Because the user coverage of these two projects is already the largest, right?
WuliGy:
Yes, it basically covers most Telegram users. TON's CEO proposed a vision a few months ago, planning to empower 30% of Telegram users through TON by 2028. If calculated based on the current 900 million Telegram users, the target is 270 million users. Hamster has already claimed to have 300 million users. If one-tenth of the 300 million users are converted to on-chain users, Hamster will have covered most of the Telegram users. Therefore, if Binance can successfully convert this traffic through Launch Pool and other methods, the interest and willingness for other Tap to Earn projects in the same track may decline in the future.
Colin:
The competition is indeed very fierce. What we see are successful projects, but there may be countless projects that have failed. Some projects may not even be able to issue coins, and the market may not necessarily pursue them.
WuliGy:
Yes, many project owners still hope to be listed on Binance. For projects that cannot be listed on Binance or Bybit, the value of the airdropped tokens in the hands of users may be less than $1. Users have participated for a long time, but finally found that there is not much return. Therefore, project owners hope to reach in-depth cooperation with exchanges, control the number of users, and attract potential users with a reasonable valuation, so that the project can develop more healthily. Now many projects have too high a proportion of community airdrops, and may face challenges in market value management after listing.
Colin:
In the end, the valuations of these projects may not be high, probably below $1 billion. What do you think of the development of these projects after the airdrop and launch? For example, Notcoin’s game was shut down after the launch, Dogs itself is not a game, and Catizen is said to be transformed into an application market. How do you think these projects will develop after the airdrop and launch?
WuliGy:
This problem is indeed common. A few months after Notcoin went online, they launched some staking activities to encourage users to lock tokens to reduce the circulation, and tried to pull the market through marketing activities. But this approach is very difficult because the distribution of tokens is too dispersed. One possible way is to launch a new project, but this transition is also difficult.
The project may hope to exchange time for space and reactivate the token economy. To be successful, it may need to continue to operate, encourage long-term holders to participate in staking, reduce the number of chips in external circulation, and promote project development through marketing. But I don’t have a particularly clear answer as to how to proceed, because it is indeed a very complicated and difficult thing.
Comparative Analysis of TON Ecosystem and GameFi
Colin:
Yesterday I sent a few tweets discussing the money-making ability of Telegram projects. Some people think this is an advantage for Telegram because the income in the mini-programs is high. But I think this is a bit problematic. Without the incentive of airdrops, especially the promotion of Binance, who would buy the products of these projects? In essence, they are more like ICOs. What do you think?
WuliGy:
Indeed, without the support of exchanges such as Binance, the future development of these projects will become unclear. Although they now have a vision of an application market, if they continue to rely on this model and continue to rely on incentives, the effect will become weaker and weaker. Binance cannot list their tokens without restrictions, and ultimately it depends on the performance of the project itself.
Colin:
To some extent, the driving logic of the TON ecosystem is not fundamentally different from GameFi in the last bull market. It is essentially similar to the Play to Earn model, right?
WuliGy:
Yes, there are similarities. GameFi can usually calculate a clear payback period, for example, if you buy a certain item, you know how long it will take to recover the cost. Projects like Catizen are different, and its valuation is constantly rising. When you enter a project early, you don't know how far it can go, which makes it more uncertain and potentially surprising than GameFi.
In contrast, GameFi’s token model is often clearer, and users can calculate the investment return cycle based on the current token price. Projects such as Catizen are more based on expectations, and you cannot clearly know the future returns, which increases uncertainty, but also allows early investors to have higher potential returns.
Colin:
This is indeed very similar to the previous GameFi model, such as buying props such as spaceships and shoes to earn more tokens. The only difference is that it relies on the Telegram ecosystem and is supported by the TON Foundation and a large community. Telegram is currently the only mainstream social media platform that is open to cryptocurrency, which is also its important advantage.
WuliGy:
Yes, this is indeed a key advantage. Another point is that many exchanges now have pre-sale markets, especially point markets. In this market, the project party usually has not yet announced the total supply of the token, but the exchange has already started trading. This is to grab traffic first, and then wait for the project party to announce the supply before making redemption.
Projects like Dogs started with 4 million users and grew to 40 million two months later. The project owners themselves don’t know how big it will eventually grow, which is very different from GameFi. GameFi’s token model is relatively predictable, while these projects on Telegram rely more on the dynamic growth of traffic.
Colin:
From this perspective, the TON ecosystem has great potential for future development. Other projects such as Aptos and Hashkey have also begun to experiment on Telegram, which shows its potential as a cryptocurrency-friendly platform. What new project forms do you think will appear in the future?
WuliGy:
I think some popular mini-games in the Chinese community may be moved to Telegram, such as casual games like "Sheep", or 2048, Bird Jump, etc. As long as the mini-games have a certain amount of traffic in Web2, they have the opportunity to become popular on Web3.
At present, the focus of the circle is still on traffic acquisition. Many projects attract users through cold start activities. Whether it is a VC-backed project or other types of projects, traffic is crucial. In the future, project parties may pay more attention to how to increase the fun of the game and effectively use traffic to promote the success of the project.
Comparison of TON Token and Memecoin
Colin:
You have been researching Memecoin a lot recently. What do you think of the differences between Memecoin and TON ecosystem tokens? Or, are there any interesting similarities between them?
WuliGy:
From several perspectives, I think there are some similarities and differences between the two. First, from the user's perspective, both Memecoin and TON ecosystem projects attract users to pursue high returns. Memecoin's operation is relatively simple, and users can make profits by buying and selling, choosing the right time to make profits, or stop profits or losses in batches according to the exchange where the project is listed.
In contrast, the mini apps of the TON ecosystem, especially the ones that make money, require users to invest a lot of time and complete various tasks every day. Memecoin is more of a "buy and wait for it to rise", while TON ecosystem projects require users to continuously participate in tasks and interact, and have stronger stickiness. In other words, Memecoin usually only requires a one-time investment, while TON's mini apps require users to continuously invest time, or even a small amount of money.
Secondly, the money-making effect of Memecoin is usually more significant. Memecoin is commonly seen as a 10x or 100x coin, while the tokens of the TON ecosystem, such as Notcoin, may only return a few hundred dollars per number, and users need to actively participate in daily tasks to earn these benefits.
From the perspective of exchanges, the core appeals of Memecoin and TON mini apps are actually very similar. Exchanges list Memecoin to attract new users, especially those interested in high returns, because Memecoin has a strong wealth effect. If the project does not perform well, the consensus will quickly dissipate, and exchanges will focus more on short-term trading popularity. TON's mini apps bring more long-term user stickiness, and exchanges hope to attract a large number of new users through these projects.
Finally, from the developer's perspective, the development cost of Memecoin is very low, especially on platforms like Pump.Fun, where the cost of creating a token can be less than one dollar. Developers make more money through KOL promotion and traffic distribution. In the TON ecosystem, developers are more like returning to the early grassroots entrepreneurial stage of Bitcoin. Many developers may not understand Web3, but through TON policies and subsidies, they can quickly enter this market, attract enough traffic, and then attract VC financing or cooperation.
In general, Memecoin has a short operating cycle and strong explosive power, while TON's mini apps rely more on long-term user participation and traffic accumulation. Although the core purpose of both is to attract users and increase transaction volume, the implementation methods and time periods are very different.
How many "hair-pulling studios" are involved in this?
Colin:
You just mentioned that the amount of tokens distributed on Telegram is not very large, and each account can only get a few tokens. I saw some people who used to run studios complaining on Twitter that the difficulty has increased and they will encounter problems with account closure. However, it seems that some people are trying to run such studios. How much do you know about the situation of Lumao Studio? Are there many people participating now?
WuliGy:
There must be a lot of studios involved. I have seen some studios that have already provided one-stop automation tools, such as scripts or smart tools. You just need to enter your Telegram account, and it can automatically complete daily tasks, such as simple tasks like Tap to Earn, and earn token points by clicking. Similar to the automation scripts in the MT Frame era, as long as you provide account information, the system can complete the task. I have seen some screenshots of the tools. Although I have not personally touched them, from the signs, many studios have tried these automation operations, and ready-made tools for batch operation of Telegram accounts have appeared.
The threat of TON ecosystem to TRON USDT
Colin:
I thought of an interesting topic we discussed last time. Lao Guo asked what he wanted to do with 1 million US dollars. I told Xiao Liu that he could open a LuMa studio. You also mentioned that you could do a project on Telegram. Lao Guo idealistically said that he wanted to build a stablecoin data website, haha.
WuliGy:
It is really interesting. At the 2049 conference in Dubai this year, Tether announced that it would natively integrate USDT on TON. This has already started in May, and you can transfer USDT to others through Telegram's address book with zero gas fee. This has great implications for the future of crypto payments, especially in some places where the popularity of crypto payments is increasing. Telegram may become an important platform for mobile crypto payments in the future, and this development prospect also makes it more worth looking forward to.
Colin:
I also found a phenomenon: almost all exchanges are chasing the tokens of the TON ecosystem, but Sun Ge's HTX seems to be completely absent. After all, Sun Ge has always been a hot spot chaser, and this time he did not take advantage of this hot spot at all, which is quite rare. Lao Guo believes that USDT on TON will pose a great threat to Sun Ge's TRON USDT. Although it is not obvious at present, it is worth paying attention to. Do you have a similar feeling?
WuliGy:
I haven't heard that HTX is involved in the TON ecosystem. Maybe Sun Ge is busy with other things now, such as SunPump and other projects. But it is true that he should not miss such a hot spot. However, he did not participate in the TON hot spot at all, which is quite rare. Maybe he will find an opportunity to cooperate later, or he may have a cooperation opportunity with a Tier 1 project that has not issued a coin. Let's wait and see, maybe he will re-enter the market at that time.
Can VC participate in the TON ecosystem?
Colin:
The question of VCs participating in the TON ecosystem has been discussed before. Telegram raised funds last year, and the valuation was very low at the time, so many VCs now feel that they have reaped a lot of benefits. However, projects like Hamster claim to have rejected all VCs, and it seems that it is not easy for VCs to participate in the TON ecosystem. What do you think about the difficulty of VCs participating in the TON ecosystem?
WuliGy:
This is indeed a difficult question, and it depends on the stage of the project. If a project is already very profitable and developing well, when VC wants to enter, the project owner may ask: What can you provide for me? If the VC's resources are average, the project owner may not be willing to cooperate.
In the early stages, projects are often willing to sell some tokens, especially when resources are needed, and VCs still have the opportunity to participate. For example, Hamster had more than 17 million users just over a month after its launch, and at that time the project still needed some help with publicity and resource docking. But when the project matures, it will be much more difficult to enter. By then, if VCs want to participate, they may only be able to enter at a higher price.
Colin:
In general, Telegram is currently the only Web2 giant social media open to Crypto, and it has a large user base and has formed its own model. It seems that the future potential of the TON ecosystem is still very large, and there should be a lot to be explored. The surge in TON tokens has even made it into the top ten in market value this year, which can be said to be the first wave. As for the current mini games and mini apps, they are the second wave. Do you think there will be a third or fourth wave?
WuliGy:
I agree. The rise of TON tokens was the first wave, and the user acquisition brought by mini apps was the second wave. There may be more waves in the future, especially for the market of Telegram mini apps. As more users realize the potential of projects like Notcoin and Hamster, there may be a new wave of users.
However, judging from the on-chain data, TON’s TVL (total locked value) has not increased significantly due to these mini apps. This shows that the connection between TON’s on-chain ecosystem and Telegram mini apps is not close enough, and many users are directly converted to exchange users through the exchange’s pre-charge activities, rather than being converted to the TON chain.
Colin:
Indeed, a project like Dogs has 40 million potential users, but there are only a few hundred thousand users holding coins on the chain, which shows that the carrying capacity of the TON chain is still very limited. It is more like a Web2.5 ecosystem, and the importance of the chain is not yet obvious. Instead, Telegram's payment function and the exchange's new user acquisition effect are more important.
WuliGy:
Yes, I heard that the TON Foundation also suggested that the project parties stagger the launch time to avoid traffic impacting the carrying capacity of the chain. In the future, the TON ecosystem may better coordinate the launch rhythm of these projects and promote the healthy development of the entire ecosystem.
