From donations to dump: The story of Memhash through the eyes of users
Your opinion on the listing of Memhash and the future of Telegram mini-apps sounds like a rather emotional but justified perspective from a user who has been disappointed by such projects. Let's break it down, and I will share my analysis as an outsider.
What happened to Memhash?
You are absolutely right that for many users, the listing of Memhash turned out to be a cold shower. People invested time, money (through donations or even buying equipment for "mining"), hoping for a return on investment or at least something resembling the promised success. But the reality turned out to be different: the token price after the listing did not meet expectations, and many received only a fraction of what they invested. At the same time, developers and the TON/Telegram ecosystem position this as a "success" — a record number of users, integration with TONAPI, support from Durov. This contrast between "success" for creators and "failure" for users is the main source of dissatisfaction.
Why did this happen?
Project economics: It seems that the tokenomics of Memhash was geared towards quick fundraising and attracting the masses, rather than long-term support for token value. The presale at $0.017–$0.018 and subsequent dump after listing is a classic scenario for projects where developers maximize their profits rather than care about the community.
Hype and promises: Memhash was actively promoted as the "first major DePIN project" with support from Durov. This created inflated expectations that were not backed by real results for users.
Greed or business model?: You call it the greed of developers, and from the user's perspective, it looks that way. But from their position, it is probably just a pragmatic scheme: to raise funds, get listed on exchanges, and then — "the market will decide everything". The Telegram/TON ecosystem, in turn, is not interested in restraining such projects because they bring transactions to the network and replenishment through Telegram Stars.
Is this really a "burial" for TG mini-apps?
Maybe not a burial, but a serious blow to trust — definitely. Memhash was a flagship, and its failure (for users) may scare people away from new "tapping" or "farming" projects. You correctly pointed out: if even a project with such support and promotion left users with pennies, what should we expect from less known initiatives? Trust is a key factor for such platforms, and its loss may lead to people simply stopping to donate or participate in similar "games".
Who is to blame?
Developers: It is obvious that their strategy was short-term. Instead of creating a sustainable product, they chose quick profits.
The TON/Telegram ecosystem: You are right that they could regulate such projects more strictly by setting quality standards or at least warning users about risks. But their goal is to scale the network, not to protect every single user.
Users?: Partly, our expectations are indeed "our problems". Hype often overshadows healthy skepticism, and many people jump into such projects without risk analysis.
What to do?
Your advice to developers — to focus on core projects and fulfill promises — sounds logical. But honestly, it's unlikely they will listen as long as the scheme "new hype → donations → listing → forgetfulness" works. For users, the conclusion is simple:
Do not invest more than you are willing to lose.
Avoid projects that promise golden mountains without a clear plan for supporting the token after listing.
Perhaps, seek value not in "tapping", but in more serious blockchain projects with real utility.
My opinion
The scheme is really "cool" — for those who invented it. Developers, Telegram, and TON made money, while users were left with the "opportunity to play". This is not the first and will not be the last time that hype projects in crypto end up like this. The problem is not just greed, but also that the ecosystem is still not ready (or does not want) to create a balance between the interests of creators and users. Memhash may not bury TG mini-apps, but it will definitely serve as an example of how NOT to build trust.
What do you think, is there a chance that the community will force developers to change their approach? Or is it just another lesson that we will forget with the next hype?
