WuBlockchain founder Colin and @WuliGy had an in-depth discussion about the recent developments in the TON ecosystem. Binance has recently listed five TON-related tokens in a row, which has garnered widespread attention. @WuliGy, with extensive experience in research and data analysis at major exchanges and a long-standing focus on memes and TON, shared his insights. We discussed the unique characteristics of each token listed, why exchanges are so fond of the TON ecosystem, and which projects and trends have promising potential moving forward.

This transcript was generated by GPT, so there may be some errors. For the full podcast, please listen here:

YouTube:

Spotify，Apple Podcasts

Why Did Binance List So Many TON Tokens in a Row?

Colin:

Today, we’re diving into the latest developments in the TON ecosystem, particularly how Binance has listed five TON-related tokens in a row, which is pretty unusual for them. Can you explain why Binance is so keen on listing so many TON-related tokens?

WuliGy:

I think the TON ecosystem has gained a lot of momentum, especially after Notcoin. TON, being backed by Telegram, has a huge user base, and Notcoin really kicked off a trend for Telegram mini apps. A lot of users, especially those looking to “farm” rewards, have flocked to the TON ecosystem. For exchanges, especially top-tier ones, their main goal now is attracting new users. TON’s mini apps, backed by Telegram, offer a massive user pool. For instance, from Notcoin to Dogs, and recently Hamster and Catizen, Hamster reportedly has over 250 million users, and Catizen reached 10 million users just a few months after launching. So for exchanges, these tokens represent a great way to drive user growth.

This is also part of a long-term strategy for exchanges. The ecosystems behind these tokens have huge potential, especially in regions like CIS, South Asia, and areas where credit cards are less common. These regions, often referred to as “third world” areas, haven’t widely adopted crypto or credit card payments yet. As they gradually embrace Web3 and crypto payments, the potential for growth is immense.

I think Binance, as well as other exchanges like Bybit and Bitget, are seeing this as a way to tap into that growth. In simple terms, these tokens bring in new users, which helps drive business expansion for the exchanges.

Differences Between Notcoin, Dogs, Hamster, and Catizen

Colin:

You follow the TON ecosystem quite closely. What’s your take on the tokens that have been listed so far? I understand Notcoin was the first official project launched by TON, right? Whereas Dogs seemed to pop up out of nowhere. Catizen is a game project from China, with a more diverse and commercialized approach, and Hamster, another game project, claims to have a massive user base, with some saying it has as many as 300 million users. How do you see these projects?

WuliGy:

Notcoin was a catalyst after its launch on Binance. TON started ramping up ecosystem development around March, with over $100 million in incentives for four major tracks, including Telegram and on-chain infrastructure. Their early tests showed significant user growth, leading them to hold public leagues each month. Notcoin was like a bombshell, igniting the Telegram mini apps space. Its wealth effect drew in tons of users, sparking interaction within the mini apps space, which in turn fueled the growth of projects like Dogs, YEScoin, and TapSwap.

Dogs is interesting because it’s a meme coin within Telegram. There’s no game logic; if you have a Telegram account, you can claim Dogs points. We all know that issuing assets and bookkeeping are core to blockchains, and Dogs was the first to distribute points via Telegram, essentially issuing tokens through the platform. This model exploded in the crypto space, with reports claiming it had a daily user growth of a million, and by the time of its TGE (Token Generation Event), the pool of users had swelled to four to five million.

As for Catizen, it reminds me of a “cloud pet” combined with the viral mechanics of Pinduoduo, where you invite friends to get rewards. There’s even a wheel of fortune feature that encourages users to bring in new people, similar to Pinduoduo’s group-buying strategy. This has created a business growth flywheel for the project.

Finally, Hamster Kombat is an older project, where you act as a CEO managing daily tasks. They have strong ties to resources in the CIS region, which has helped the project grow. Today, Hamster Kombat is likely the largest project in the Telegram mini apps space in terms of user numbers.

The key differences between these projects lie in their operational models and user growth paths.

The Power of Russian-Speaking KOLs and Communities

Colin:

I heard Notcoin was driven by about a dozen top Russian-speaking KOLs, whose main base is on Telegram. Telegram differs from platforms like Twitter or WeChat, where groups are limited to 500 people and prone to being shut down. Telegram groups can host tens of thousands of people and be managed with bots, similar to Discord. This makes me think the power of Russian-speaking communities may be much stronger than we imagine. What’s your take on the influence of Russian-speaking KOLs and communities?

WuliGy:

There’s definitely a strong traffic matrix at play here. From what I’ve seen, projects like Notcoin, Dogs, and Blum, although initiated by different companies, are backed by connected teams. These teams often know each other, sometimes even dining together, so they have powerful resources at their disposal. As you mentioned, Telegram isn’t like WeChat. WeChat groups cap out at 500 people, but Telegram groups can hold tens of thousands. This scale allows them to effectively activate private traffic.

These big KOLs can use incentives like cash rewards to attract initial traffic, gradually pushing the projects forward through funding and other mechanisms. The core advantage here is their strong control over traffic resources and private traffic. With TON’s public league incentives, these KOLs began actively promoting Telegram mini apps, driving success through cross-promotion between different Tier 1 projects.

The Structure and Rewards of TON’s Public Leagues

Colin:

It seems like the core projects launched by TON or its foundation have had a big impact on the ecosystem. Can you explain how TON’s competition policy works in more detail?

WuliGy:

The early stages of TON’s competitions had a bigger impact. Here’s how it works: they set up a prize pool, say $3 million, which is distributed across different sectors of the TON ecosystem, including memes, Telegram, Dapps, and DeFi. Each track has a leaderboard, and Telegram mini apps are one of them.

Projects are ranked based on their Telegram user count, on-chain users, or the number of paid members. The higher a project ranks, the more rewards it gets from the prize pool. So, many projects, especially those simple “click-to-earn” games, aren’t just about user engagement but are also designed to win more rewards by meeting the public league criteria.

The essence of the public league is to support top projects in the TON ecosystem. These projects, after receiving funding, can better manage their communities and push their projects forward. Telegram mini apps, as a key track, are ranked by metrics like traffic, the number of users linking wallets, and on-chain transaction volumes, with projects sharing the prize pool based on their ranking.

Future Potential of Tier 1 Projects Like TapSwap, Blum, and YEScoin

Colin:

You’ve mentioned some potential Tier 1 projects beyond those already listed on Binance. Can you introduce these projects and share your thoughts on their future?

WuliGy:

TapSwap is a highly popular project in the CIS region. If you track the weekly or monthly Google search rankings, you’ll see TapSwap and Blum consistently among the top searches. They have a unique mechanism, with a daily code system — basically, a daily task. Users complete tasks and search for answers to share the prize pool. This model originated with Hamster Kombat, which used this approach to retain users. It has driven TapSwap and Blum’s persistent popularity in the CIS region.

Another project to watch is YEScoin, a project well-known to be launched by a Chinese team. Blum is another strong Tier 1 contender. For Tier 2 projects, there are some that parallel Dogs, like Cats and Rocky Rabbit. There’s also X Empire, originally called Musk Empire, which is working closely with Bybit. It’s worth keeping an eye on these projects.

When we discussed this earlier, we noted that Catizen was set to launch around September 20, with Hamster following at the end of the month. At that time, we predicted that Binance would likely list at least one of these projects. For example, Dogs had a pre-launch reserve of over 50 billion tokens on Bybit, while Binance’s reserve was around 40 billion. Bybit outperformed Binance in terms of attracting new users. This is why we thought Binance might list another Telegram ecosystem project to balance out their user traffic. As it turns out, Binance ended up listing both.

Will the User Growth of TON Projects Plateau?

Colin:

Do you think the new user growth from these projects will slow down over time? Or when do you think this surge in traffic might taper off?

WuliGy:

If projects like Catizen and Hamster perform well, their impact may be reflected in how they perform on the exchanges. Tier 2 or Tier 3 projects may bring in around 50,000 to 100,000 new users, but with these high-traffic Telegram mini apps launching, the effect of new user acquisition will gradually diminish. For example, Dogs had 40 to 50 million users in its points pool, but only about 10 million of them converted into exchange users, and of those, maybe only 3 to 4 million ended up on Binance.

As more projects like Catizen or Hamster launch, the conversion rate will drop further, and exchanges might start losing interest in similar projects. I think once these two projects are up and running, exchanges may be less eager to list other similar ones.

Colin:

Because these two projects already cover a large chunk of the user base, right?

WuliGy:

Exactly. They’ve basically captured most of the Telegram user base. A few months ago, TON’s CEO outlined a vision to enable 30% of Telegram users through TON by 2028. With Telegram’s 900 million users, that’s a target of around 270 million. Hamster claims to have 300 million users already. If even 10% of those convert into on-chain users, Hamster alone would have already covered a significant portion of Telegram’s user base. If Binance can successfully convert these users through its Launchpool or similar programs, the need for more similar projects would decrease.

Colin:

The competition is indeed fierce. We only see the successful projects, but there are likely countless projects that haven’t made it, or that may struggle to even get their tokens out there.

WuliGy:

Exactly. Many project teams aim to get listed on Binance. For those that can’t, the value of their airdrop tokens might not even be worth a dollar. After spending a lot of time on these projects, users might find the rewards aren’t that significant. So, project teams are pushing for deeper collaborations with exchanges, aiming to control user numbers and ensure a reasonable valuation to attract potential users. That way, the projects can grow more sustainably. Many projects currently allocate too much to community airdrops, leading to challenges in managing their market value after listing.

Colin:

Most of these projects will likely be valued at under $1 billion in the end. How do you see the development of these projects after their airdrops and initial listings? For example, Notcoin shut down its game shortly after listing, Dogs isn’t a game at all, and some say Catizen might shift into becoming an app store. How do you think these projects will evolve post-launch?

WuliGy:

This is a common issue. A few months after Notcoin’s launch, they tried to reduce token circulation by encouraging users to stake their tokens through a staking campaign, hoping to pump the price through marketing activities. But this strategy is difficult to sustain because the token distribution is too scattered. One possible approach is to launch new projects, but transitioning is always a challenge.

Project teams might try to buy time by promoting token staking to limit the circulating supply, while also continuing to drive development through marketing. But how exactly they’ll manage this is hard to predict — it’s a complex and challenging task.

Comparing TON Ecosystem and GameFi

Colin:

I tweeted yesterday about how projects on Telegram are making a lot of money, and some people argue this is Telegram’s strength because these mini apps generate significant revenue. But I think there’s an issue: without the stimulus of airdrops or Binance listings, who would buy these projects’ products? Essentially, they feel more like ICOs. What’s your take?

WuliGy:

That’s a good point. Without the support of Binance or other exchanges, the future of these projects would be unclear. While they’ve painted a vision of becoming an app marketplace, if they continue to rely on these types of stimuli, their effectiveness will weaken over time. Binance won’t keep listing their tokens indefinitely. Eventually, projects will have to stand on their own.

Colin:

In some ways, the driving logic behind the TON ecosystem isn’t fundamentally different from last bull market’s GameFi projects. The Play-to-Earn model is quite similar, right?

WuliGy:

Yes, there are definite similarities. GameFi projects often had a clear return-on-investment timeline. You’d buy an in-game item and know when you’d make your money back. But projects like Catizen are different — their valuation keeps rising, and when you enter early on, you don’t know how far they’ll go. This adds uncertainty but also potential surprises, compared to GameFi.

In GameFi, the token model is more straightforward, and users can calculate the return period based on the current token price. Projects like Catizen are more about expectations, and you can’t clearly predict future returns. This creates uncertainty, but for early entrants, there’s a chance of higher returns.

Colin:

This is quite similar to the GameFi model, where users buy items like ships or shoes to earn more tokens. The only difference here is that it relies on the Telegram ecosystem and has support from the TON Foundation and large communities. Telegram is currently the only mainstream social media platform open to crypto, which gives it a big edge.

WuliGy:

Exactly. That’s a key advantage. Also, many exchanges now have presale markets, especially for points markets. In these markets, the total supply of tokens hasn’t even been announced yet, but the exchanges have already started trading. This is to capture traffic early, with the tokens delivered once the project reveals its supply.

Take Dogs, for example. It had 4 million users at launch, and within two months, that number had grown to 40 million. The project team itself didn’t know how much it would grow. This is quite different from GameFi, where the token model is easier to predict. Telegram projects rely more on dynamic traffic growth.

Colin:

Looking at it from this perspective, the TON ecosystem still has huge potential. We’ve seen projects like Aptos and Hashkey also starting to experiment on Telegram, showing that Telegram has great promise as a crypto-friendly platform. Do you think we’ll see new types of projects emerging in the future?

WuliGy:

I believe there’s a lot of potential, especially with smaller casual games that are already popular in the Chinese market. For instance, games like “Sheep a Sheep” or other casual games like 2048 or Flappy Bird could easily be ported to Telegram. Any game that has a significant Web2 user base could potentially blow up on Web3.

Right now, the key focus in the space is on acquiring traffic. Many projects are using cold-start strategies to attract users. Whether they’re VC-backed or not, traffic is crucial. In the future, project teams will likely focus more on enhancing gameplay, while also utilizing traffic more effectively to push their projects forward.

Comparing TON Tokens with Memecoins

Colin:

You’ve done quite a bit of research on memecoins recently. What do you think are the key differences between memecoins and TON ecosystem tokens? Or are there interesting similarities between the two?

WuliGy:

From several angles, there are similarities and differences. First, from a user perspective, both memecoins and TON ecosystem projects appeal to users who are chasing high returns. Memecoins operate more simply: users can buy and sell, choosing the right time to profit, or they might use the exchange listings as a way to stagger their profits or cut losses.

In contrast, TON ecosystem mini apps, especially the “farm” type projects, require users to spend a lot of time completing daily tasks. Memecoins are more of a “buy and wait” scenario, whereas TON projects need users to stay engaged daily, creating stronger stickiness. In other words, memecoins often require a one-time investment, while TON’s mini apps demand consistent participation, sometimes even a bit of capital.

Second, the wealth effect is usually more pronounced with memecoins. It’s not uncommon for memecoins to deliver 10x or even 100x returns. On the other hand, TON ecosystem tokens, like Notcoin, might only yield a few hundred dollars per instance, and users have to actively engage daily to earn those rewards.

From an exchange’s perspective, the core objective for both memecoins and TON mini apps is quite similar: they’re both used to attract new users. Exchanges list memecoins primarily to draw in users interested in high returns because memecoins tend to generate a lot of buzz. If a project underperforms, the consensus fades quickly, and exchanges are more focused on short-term trading volume. In contrast, TON mini apps bring long-term user engagement, with exchanges hoping to lock in these new users for extended periods.

Finally, from a developer’s perspective, the cost of launching a memecoin is extremely low. Platforms like Pump.Fun allow users to create a token for less than a dollar. Developers rely heavily on KOL promotion and traffic distribution to generate profits. In the TON ecosystem, developers are more like early Bitcoin entrepreneurs, starting from the grassroots level. Many developers may not even be familiar with Web3, but with TON’s incentives and grants, they can quickly enter the market, attract enough traffic, and then seek VC funding or partnerships.

Overall, memecoins have shorter lifecycles and stronger bursts of activity, while TON mini apps rely more on sustained user engagement and traffic accumulation. Though both are aimed at attracting users and boosting trading volumes, the ways they achieve these goals and the timelines involved are quite different.

How Many “Farm Studios” Are Involved?

Colin:

You mentioned earlier that the distribution of tokens on Telegram isn’t very large per account, and users can’t get too many tokens individually. I’ve seen some people on Twitter, especially those who used to run studios, complain that the process has become harder, and they’re facing issues like getting banned. But it seems some are still trying to set up these types of farming studios. What’s your understanding of the current situation with these farming studios? Are there a lot involved?

WuliGy:

There are definitely a lot of farming studios participating. I’ve seen that some studios are now offering one-stop automated tools, like scripts or smart tools. You just input your Telegram account, and the system will automatically complete the daily tasks for you, such as Tap to Earn, where users can earn token points through simple clicks. It’s similar to the automated scripts we saw during the MT Frame era, where once you provided your account information, the system would complete tasks for you. I’ve seen screenshots of these tools. While I haven’t personally tried them, the evidence suggests that many studios are experimenting with these automated solutions, and ready-made tools for managing multiple Telegram accounts are already available.

Threats to Tron’s USDT from the TON Ecosystem

Colin:

This reminds me of something we discussed before. There was talk of spending $1 million on building a farming studio, and I joked with Xiao Liu that we could set one up on Telegram. Meanwhile, Guo had this idealistic notion of building a stablecoin data site, which made us laugh.

WuliGy:

Yeah, it’s funny to think about. At the 2049 conference in Dubai earlier this year, Tether announced its native integration of USDT on TON. Back in May, they started promoting zero-gas-fee transfers of USDT via Telegram’s contact list. This has big implications for the future of crypto payments, especially as adoption grows in certain regions. Telegram could become a major platform for mobile crypto payments, and the potential is exciting.

Colin:

I also noticed that while most exchanges are chasing after TON ecosystem tokens, Sun’s HTX (formerly Huobi) hasn’t jumped on board. Sun is usually quick to ride trends, so it’s surprising he hasn’t capitalized on this one. Guo thinks TON’s USDT could pose a significant threat to Tron’s USDT in the future, even though we aren’t seeing it yet. Do you have a similar impression?

WuliGy:

I haven’t heard of HTX getting involved with the TON ecosystem. Maybe Sun is occupied with other projects like SunPump. But yeah, it’s odd that he’s not chasing this trend — he usually doesn’t miss these kinds of opportunities. Perhaps he’s waiting for the right moment to collaborate, or he might be working with an unlisted Tier 1 project. We’ll have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he re-enters the scene later on.

Can VCs Get Involved in the TON Ecosystem?

Colin:

There’s been some discussion about VC involvement in the TON ecosystem. Telegram raised funds last year at a low valuation, so many VCs have profited significantly. But projects like Hamster claim they’ve rejected all VC funding, suggesting it’s not easy for VCs to enter the TON ecosystem. What’s your take on this?

WuliGy:

It’s definitely a challenge, and it largely depends on the stage of the project. If a project is already very successful and making money, when VCs want to come in, the project team might ask, “What can you offer us?” If the VC doesn’t have strong resources, the project might not be interested in partnering.

However, in the early stages, projects are usually more open to selling a portion of their tokens, especially when they need resources. For instance, Hamster had over 17 million users within a month of launch, and at that stage, they still needed help with promotion and resource connections. But once a project matures, it becomes much harder to get involved. At that point, VCs would have to pay a much higher price to enter.

Colin:

Overall, Telegram is currently the only major Web2 social media giant that’s open to crypto, and with its large user base, it has developed its own model. It seems like the TON ecosystem still has a lot of untapped potential, and there’s much more to explore. The recent surge of the TON token, which even entered the top 10 in market cap this year, can be seen as the first wave. The mini apps and small games could be considered the second wave. Do you think we’ll see a third or fourth wave?

WuliGy:

I agree. The rise of the TON token was the first wave, and the user growth driven by mini apps is the second wave. There could be more waves, particularly in the Telegram mini apps market. As more users recognize the potential of projects like Notcoin and Hamster, we could see another wave of user influx.

However, looking at on-chain data, TON’s TVL (Total Value Locked) hasn’t shown significant growth despite the rise of mini apps. This suggests that the TON on-chain ecosystem isn’t tightly integrated with the Telegram mini apps yet. Many users are directly converting into exchange users through pre-listing activities, rather than being onboarded into the TON chain itself.

Colin:

Exactly. For example, Dogs claims to have 40 million potential users, but there are only tens of thousands of token holders on-chain. This shows that TON’s on-chain infrastructure is still somewhat limited in its capacity. It feels more like a Web2.5 ecosystem, where on-chain activity isn’t as critical as the user acquisition strategies of Telegram’s paid features and the exchanges.

WuliGy:

Right. I’ve heard that the TON Foundation has advised project teams to stagger their launch timelines to prevent overloading the chain’s capacity. Moving forward, I think the TON ecosystem will work on better coordinating these project launches to ensure a healthier and more sustainable development trajectory.

Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish