What makes Telegram Gift popular and stronger than the previous NFT?

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

As a user who still holds Azuki (@Azuki) NFTs (wallet address: "howard-peng.eth"), and has been deeply involved in the TON blockchain (@TON_blockchain) field for over two and a half years, while also working at @Binance for three years, I feel I can quickly share some thoughts on this topic.

I would like to explore this issue from two angles:

"Content is king, distribution is queen" - user-centered.

The best user experience can create the greatest value for users.

First - "Distribution is important"

Good distribution channels often lead to better (or even the best) user experiences. I still remember back in 2021, when I shared my NFT with my "Web2" friends, they asked me, "Why not just copy someone else's NFT image instead of spending money to buy it?"

At that moment, I felt very frustrated and even speechless. I could only say, "No, this is different! It's in my crypto wallet, look!"

But they don't care at all.

We all remember how the NFT craze of 2021 ended in a painful way.

Maybe I will keep my Azuki for my son.

My first point: Why is Telegram Gifts different for me?

"It proves ownership in a simpler and easier way."

This is my initial response to the questions you raised. I believe the past NFT experiences are not applicable here.

(By the way, check out my Gifts <3)

You can check here:

Do you remember the first sentence I said at the beginning? Did you check if I really own Azuki?

I guess you don't.

Because you need my wallet address, even if I have an ENS domain (which I do), you still cannot easily access it on any website unless there is hyperlink support like Etherscan.io, and you also need to check if my ENS is renewed?

This is so frustrating. I hate this.

I hate it because those annoying check-in processes in every Web3 event frustrate me; I also hate it because the experience feels so disjointed when showcasing my social attributes and NFTs.

I also hate my Azuki, not only because its dollar value has dropped, but also because even though I've bought it, I still can't easily display it! (@Zagabond)

Based on the real pain points we have experienced, I believe we should call them "Telegram Gifts" instead of simply "NFTs."

Why?

Because this leads to my second point: rethinking from the perspective of Telegram - how can we provide the best user experience?

So, the second key point:

The best user experience can create the greatest value for users.

But the best user experience does not come from on-chain wallets, MetaMask, Phantom, Rabbit, or other similar products. Sorry, that's the reality - just look at the efforts made by Binance and OKX in recent years to address this issue.

This is why you need to change your perspective.

From Telegram's perspective (or more precisely, from its sole product manager Pavel Durov's perspective), user experience is undoubtedly a top priority.

This priority forces you to rethink and adapt to a series of constraints: from the TON blockchain becoming the sole chain for Mini-Apps (@tappscenter), to the emergence of Telegram Stars due to Apple (@AppStore) policies (the backstory is quite long, so I won't elaborate).

This is also why I have been promoting the concept of "StarFi" for the past six months (or even longer):

(Oh my, explaining this historical background is really exhausting.)

In simple terms:

Ensuring that Telegram Messenger is not removed from the App Store is the current highest priority.

Under such circumstances, designing "digital asset content" is undoubtedly a huge challenge.

This is also why the current Gifts model is crucial and simple enough:

Start by sending gifts (send gifts to Telegram friends).

Optionally convert them into "unique assets such as NFTs."

From a business and user experience perspective, this is almost the optimal solution.

I know you might say:

"But it does not have on-chain metadata."

"But it was not originally minted on the TON blockchain."

"But it is not completely decentralized."

But what I want to say is that actually delaying the minting process until the last step is a reasonable and elegant design—because it won't scare away most new users. (By the way, I believe you know that NFTs like Azuki and Bored Ape also have centralized metadata, right?)

Another similar example is the skins in CS:GO: Imagine how ridiculous and terrible the experience would be if users had to bind their bank accounts and set withdrawal passwords before purchasing a skin!

As the former Head of Developer Relations for TON Foundation in Asia, I have a deep understanding of the potential of the TON blockchain (both in terms of wallet user base and technical aspects). However, after months of reflection, I gradually realized that building an ecosystem is not just about technical feasibility, but more importantly, about bringing real value to users.

A purely EVM solution is not the only future, nor is a faster TPS EVM chain. Why? Because the incentives for users have not truly been ignited—there simply aren't enough "on-chain users" actively trading at the moment (or perhaps only a few bots are at work?).

This leads to my second point, which requires deeper exploration—this is more of a business strategy rather than just a technical issue. After delving into this ecosystem for more than two years, I find that superficial criticism of a platform with a billion users (@Telegram Gifts) is neither wise nor fair.

Ultimately, I believe I should invest more time in writing structured articles that elaborate on my vision for the future direction—whether it's about Telegram Gifts themselves (why and how they appear in their current form) or about the future opportunities we can explore. However, given the constraints of time and space, I need to carefully refine these ideas.

Given the limited exposure of the TON/Telegram community on Crypto Twitter (CT) as always, here are some interesting community tools related to Telegram Gifts:

ZenithTO's article:

Plush Pepe: / @PlushPepeCom

@tonevents

@getgemsdotio

@_marketapp

Data source: