Sometime mid-April, we published a short LinkedIn post about decentralized messaging that was well received by our audience. We wanted to double down on this topic specifically because we believe there are two distinct ways of looking at this.
On the one hand, the telecom community is looking at it from a very pragmatic, business-oriented, and skeptical perspective. For many, this topic is left to marinate in the dark cryptobro corner of the internet. However, the technology is quietly maturing, and the effort to bring it forth and push it toward mass adoption is consistent and systematic. In parallel, the web3 community is laying the groundwork for something that has enormous disruptive potential for the messaging space.
This article aims to introduce the basic concepts of blockchain messaging to people in the telecom industry who may not take decentralized messaging seriously or have no real interest in it yet. We hope that, by opening this discussion, we will bring the two communities closer together.
This is by no means an exhaustive outline, as the web3 developers community is constantly updating and reconceptualizing blockchain/decentralized messaging as we speak. And what holds true today might be obsolete tomorrow. However, we will discuss the main concepts behind web3 messaging, its disruptive potential, benefits compared to traditional messaging channels, challenges to mass adoption, and more.
How Does Decentralized Messaging Work?
Decentralized messaging is built on the same principles as blockchain technology: distributed systems, cryptographic trust, and user control. It replaces centralized servers with peer-to-peer networks, where messages are encrypted, routed, and sometimes stored across a network of independent nodes rather than managed by a single provider.
Unlike traditional messaging systems such as SMS, RCS, or OTT platforms — which depend on central servers controlled by MNOs or tech giants — decentralized messaging distributes both data and control. This makes the system more resistant to censorship, hacking, and systemic outages. As Investopedia explains, blockchain eliminates single points of failure by distributing records across the network.
Cryptographic Identity and Secure Routing
Most decentralized messaging systems identify users by cryptographic keys instead of phone numbers or usernames. These systems usually link the keys to a wallet. When someone sends a message, they encrypt it using the recipient’s public key, allowing only the recipient to decrypt it.
Some protocols, like XMTP, enable direct wallet-to-wallet messaging. Others, like Waku, use decentralized relay networks to route messages without revealing metadata. In many cases, content isn’t stored on-chain — instead, it’s temporarily cached or stored in decentralized file systems like IPFS.
Because there’s no central entity storing your messages or managing your identity, you own your data. And since these systems are often open protocols, developers can build different front ends that all interact with the same underlying network — paving the way for true messaging interoperability.
Is blockchain messaging the same as decentralized messaging?
Blockchain messaging and decentralized messaging are related but not really the same. Blockchain messaging stores messages on a blockchain, creating a secure and unchangeable record. Decentralized messaging means the system is spread across many nodes, without one central server. Some decentralized systems use blockchain, but others do not.
Matrix.org is a good example of a decentralized messaging protocol that does not use blockchain. It uses a federated network of servers to share messages securely. Messages are synced across these servers, ensuring no single point of control.
Decentralized vs. traditional messaging (SMS, OTT, RCS)
To better understand the web3 messaging system, it’s helpful to compare it directly with traditional messaging systems like SMS, OTT apps (such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, etc.), and RCS. The table below highlights the key differences and similarities across crucial dimensions, from security and data ownership to scalability and monetization models.
| Dimension | Blockchain Messaging | SMS | OTT (e.g., WhatsApp) | RCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Decentralized peer-to-peer network | Centralized carrier servers | Centralized corporate servers (e.g., Meta) | Centralized, managed by operators or trusted providers |
| Security | End-to-end encryption, immutable ledger, tamper-proof | Basic encryption, vulnerable to interception | End-to-end encryption (varies by platform) | Encrypted but reliant on carrier security |
| Data Storage | Distributed across nodes; no single point of failure | Stored on carrier servers | Stored on corporate servers | Stored on carrier servers |
| Cost Structure | Lower long-term costs (no intermediaries); micropayments via tokens | Carrier fees per message | Free for users (ad-supported or subscription models) | Carrier-dependent pricing; often bundled |
| Speed/Scalability | Slower due to consensus mechanisms; scalability challenges | Near-instant delivery | Instant (depends on internet) | Instant (requires internet) |
| Data Ownership | User-controlled identities and data | Carriers retain control | Platforms own user data | Carriers retain control |
| Interoperability | Limited; varies by blockchain protocol | Universal (works across devices) | Platform-specific (e.g., WhatsApp-to-WhatsApp only) | Growing interoperability among carriers |
| Censorship Resistance | High (no central authority to block messages) | Low (carriers can block messages) | Moderate (platforms can censor) | Low (carrier-dependent) |
| Monetization Model | Token incentives, pay-per-use, decentralized services | Revenue from carrier fees | Ads, premium subscriptions | Carrier fees, business messaging APIs |
| Environmental Impact | Higher energy use (proof-of-work blockchains) | Low energy footprint | Moderate (data center reliance) | Low energy footprint |
Disruptive Potential: Is Blockchain Messaging a Threat or an Opportunity?
Decentralized messaging challenges the centralized control models that have dominated digital communication for decades. Traditional messaging-whether SMS from mobile network operators (MNOs), RCS promoted by groups like the GSMA, or OTT apps like WhatsApp and Telegram-relies on centralized infrastructure. A few entities control user data, message routing, and account management.
Blockchain-based messaging flips this model. It removes central authorities and replaces them with decentralized networks of nodes, peer-to-peer protocols, and user-owned identities. No single player can dictate terms, censor users, or extract rent from network participation. This decentralization introduces a clear disruptive force, similar to how Bitcoin and decentralized finance (DeFi) disrupted banking and payments, as explained by CoinDesk.
New Competitive Pressures for Telecom Incumbents
For MNOs, RCS aggregators, and OTT players, this shift presents new competitive pressure. Many telecom incumbents invest heavily in RCS to reclaim messaging relevance after losing ground to OTT apps. But blockchain messaging doesn’t rely on centralized app stores, carrier partnerships, or middlemen. Protocols like Waku, XMTP, and Session show how messaging layers can be fully independent, portable, and increasingly user-friendly.
Meanwhile, user expectations are evolving. In a post-Snowden, post-Cambridge Analytica era, privacy is no longer optional. Users, especially younger generations, demand data ownership, privacy by design, and interoperability. Decentralized messaging, built on web3 identity and user-controlled encryption, meets these demands, according to the Electric Capital 2023 Developer Report.
This doesn’t mean blockchain messaging will replace traditional models overnight. The inertia of existing systems is strong. But telecom stakeholders should see this trend not as a “cryptobro fad” but as a serious shift in communication paradigms. The question is how fast decentralized messaging will mature-and which players will seize the opportunity.
Challenges to Mass Adoption
While the potential of decentralized messaging is real, the road to mass adoption is far from straightforward. Several critical challenges — both technical and structural — still stand in the way of blockchain-based messaging becoming a mainstream communication layer.
Technical Challenges: Scalability, Costs, and Complexity
Most blockchain networks were not originally designed with real-time messaging in mind. Handling high message volumes with low latency remains a significant technical hurdle. Scalability solutions are in development — with protocols like Waku v2 focusing on lightweight messaging over peer-to-peer networks — but decentralized systems still face efficiency gaps compared to centralized servers.
Transaction costs also pose a barrier. While many messaging protocols avoid putting message content directly on-chain (to sidestep gas fees), certain actions like identity verification or key management may still incur blockchain transaction costs depending on the design. For users accustomed to free messaging apps, this can be a tough sell.
Finally, complexity at the protocol layer can make it harder for developers to build seamless, intuitive user experiences — a gap that centralized apps have spent years refining.
User Experience: Wallets, Private Keys, and Onboarding Friction
The average user does not want to manage cryptographic keys, write down seed phrases, or deal with decentralized identifiers (DIDs) when they simply want to send a text. Yet in most decentralized messaging apps today, some level of crypto-literacy is still required.
Although projects like Lens Protocol and XMTP are working to abstract away the complexities of wallet-based messaging, onboarding remains a major friction point. Without significant improvements in usability — particularly around key recovery and user onboarding — blockchain messaging risks remaining a niche for web3 enthusiasts rather than achieving mass adoption.
Network Effects: The Incumbents Are Still Strong
Even the most technically superior messaging app faces a basic reality: users go where their friends, family, and colleagues already are. This “network effect” strongly favors existing giants like WhatsApp, iMessage, and even traditional SMS/RCS for basic communication.
Convincing users to switch — or even to maintain an additional app for decentralized messaging — requires not just a better product, but a fundamentally compelling reason. Privacy and ownership are powerful selling points, but until decentralized apps offer seamless experiences and broad interoperability, overcoming entrenched habits will be an uphill battle.
Energy Concerns: A Lingering Reputation Problem
Although most decentralized messaging protocols today are designed to be lightweight and energy-efficient — relying on peer-to-peer communication rather than blockchain consensus for message transmission — the broader public still often associates “blockchain” with high energy use, thanks to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work model.
This reputational challenge means decentralized messaging platforms must be very clear about their technical architectures and energy profiles if they want to avoid being swept up in environmental critiques.
Regulatory Gray Areas: Privacy vs. Compliance
One of the promises of decentralized messaging — true end-to-end encryption, censorship resistance, and anonymity — is also one of its regulatory Achilles’ heels.
Telecom operators are deeply familiar with lawful interception requirements and data retention laws in jurisdictions like the EU (GDPR), the US (CALEA), and many others. Fully decentralized messaging platforms often cannot comply with such regulations by design — they have no central authority to subpoena, no databases to tap into.
This puts blockchain messaging into a murky legal category. As governments around the world tighten their grip on digital communication, decentralized apps may face regulatory headwinds unless new frameworks for compliance are developed.
Next, we will try to paint a broad picture of the decentralized messaging ecosystem by listing some of the most important messaging apps and web3 messaging protocols.
Decentralized Messaging Apps
| App | Estimated 2025 Users | Growth/Market Context | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Element | 115 million (Matrix network: reflects total federated users, not strictly monthly active users.) | Widely adopted by governments and enterprises seeking secure, sovereign communications. | Matrix-based E2EE messenger; federated chat rooms and DMs; supports voice/video calls, file sharing, and bridging to other networks. |
| Session | 1+ million active | Privacy-focused growth; users are globally distributed. | Mobile and desktop messenger with onion-routing; no phone/email required; metadata-free routing via Tor; fully E2EE. |
| Briar | Estimated to have tens of thousands of active users globally | Niche tool for activists/journalists and in censorship-prone areas. | Android app using Bluetooth/Wi-Fi mesh and Tor; end-to-end encrypted P2P chat; censorship-resistant; all data stored on user devices. |
| Bridgefy | 10+ million users worldwide | Gained traction in disaster areas and protests. | Offline Bluetooth/BLE mesh messaging; no Internet required; uses Signal’s encryption protocol to secure chats. |
| Berty | Estimated user base is in the low tens of thousands | Research-driven NGO project with EU grant funding. | Offline-first P2P messenger; end-to-end encrypted; no account needed; can use Bluetooth & LAN to discover peers without Internet. |
| Ricochet Refresh | Niche user base estimated in the thousands due to technical complexity and niche use cases | Continuation of the Ricochet Tor-messenger project. | Desktop P2P instant messenger over Tor hidden services; anonymous identity; no servers or metadata; built-in file transfer. |
| Tox | The estimated user base is in the low tens of thousands | Open-source since 2014; activity slowed but still maintained. | Decentralized P2P messaging with voice and video; fully E2EE; supports text chat, group chats, voice/video calls, screen-sharing, and file transfer. |
Web3 Messaging Protocols
| Protocol | Growth/Market Context | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| Matrix.org | Surpassed 115 million users; adopted by governments and enterprises. | Open standard for decentralized, secure communication; supports E2EE, VoIP, and bridging to other networks. |
| XMTP | Adopted rapidly in Web3 wallets and apps; over 2 million connected identities. | Decentralized wallet-to-wallet messaging protocol; end-to-end encrypted; supports push notifications and multimedia. |
| Push Protocol | Over 17 million notifications sent to ~60k subscribers; rebranded for cross-chain messaging. | Decentralized communication layer for Web3; enables apps/wallets to send notifications or secure messages; multi-chain support. |
| Mailchain | Integrated by NEAR and Tezos ecosystems; growing adoption in Web3 projects. | Web3 communication protocol; public-key encrypted messaging tied to on-chain IDs; off-chain encrypted storage; on-chain proofs. |
| Nostr | Rapidly expanding protocol with transparent metrics; emphasized by influencers. | Simple decentralized pub/sub protocol; users identified by public keys; messages signed and relayed across open servers. |
| Waku | Evolved from Status/Whisper; used by Status app and other projects. | Family of P2P messaging protocols; censorship-resistant pub/sub messaging; modular stack; scalable and DDoS-resistant. |
| Cwtch | Privacy-focused project; small user base of privacy-conscious communicators. | Decentralized, metadata-resistant messaging protocol over Tor; all communications E2EE and onion-routed; users host their own “safe spaces”. |
| dm3 | New interoperable Web3 messaging initiative; backed by industry. | Layer-0 peer-to-peer messaging protocol using ENS for discovery; end-to-end encrypted; decentralized delivery through relay nodes. |
| ActivityPub | Widely deployed in the Fediverse; over 1 million Mastodon users by 2018. | Decentralized social networking protocol; supports federated DMs/notifications; enables interop between compatible servers. |
Conclusion: Why Telcos Should Start Paying Attention
Decentralized messaging may still be early-stage, but the trajectory is unmistakable. The web3 ecosystem is building steadily, and user expectations around privacy, control, and interoperability are evolving just as fast.
For the telecom industry, this presents a choice: get involved early and help shape the standards, or respond later—when the rules are already written by someone else. Waiting on the sidelines risks repeating the OTT disruption story, only this time without the chance to catch up.
This isn’t just about technology. It’s about mindset. The gap between telecoms and decentralized developers is still wide—but it doesn’t have to be. Now is the time for both sides to talk, experiment, and co-create. Because the next era of messaging won’t be built in isolation—it’ll be built through collaboration.
Any questions?
Global Telco Consult (GTC) is a trusted independent business messaging consultancy with deep domain knowledge in application-to-person (A2P) services. GTC provides tailor-made messaging strategies to enterprises, messaging service providers, operators and voice carriers. We have expertise in multiple messaging channels such as RCS, Viber, WhatsApp, Telegram and SMS for the wholesale and retail industry. Additionally, GTC offers Digital Identity and Fraud advisory services, aiding clients in navigating the complexities of digital identity verification and fraud prevention, while also providing Recruitment services, assisting businesses in acquiring top talent within the telecom and technology sectors.
GTC supports its customers from market strategy through service launch, running the operations and supporting sales and procurement. The company started in 2016 with a mission to guide operators and telcos to embrace new and exciting opportunities and make the most out of business messaging. For more information or industry insights, browse through our blog page or follow us on LinkedIn.