There may be some misjudgments regarding the study of TON (Telegram Open Network), and I want to share some new perspectives.
First, the core logic lies in the connection between the Telegram platform and the TON cryptocurrency. If we assume that the essence of Telegram is communication and interaction among acquaintances, while cryptocurrency embodies anonymity and interactions between relational chains, there may be some inherent conflict between the two. Of course, if cryptocurrency can be accepted by mainstream society, this issue will be greatly alleviated.
The second viewpoint is from a product perspective. I previously compared TON with WeChat, but after in-depth study, I found that there are essential differences in product logic between the two. WeChat Pay is an endogenous feature, with a very smooth experience; transferring money or initiating payments is almost imperceptible. For example, transferring money during a chat. TON, on the other hand, is more similar to the way mini-programs work, where the usage path may be completely different from the communication process.
Thirdly, from the perspective of the development of the currency itself, TON still needs a process for market acceptance. Its application scenarios and degree of popularity need further expansion. The success of WeChat Pay is not only due to its smooth user experience but also because of its rich online application scenarios.
If TON can bridge the three aspects of application scenarios, user experience, and market recognition in the future, its development prospects will be highly anticipated. These are some of my thoughts on the TON wallet.
