New Battle for Web3 Traffic Entry: Telegram vs. MetaMask

Source: Fu Ruo, Odaily Planet Daily

What kind of landscape will the next bull market bring to Web3? No one has a definitive answer to this question. CZ once stated, "The next bull market is likely to make DeFi's scale surpass that of CeFi." If CZ's words come true, then the decentralized Web3 entry point is also expected to gradually surpass CEX, accommodating a larger scale of new users.

In the previous cycle, MetaMask was undoubtedly the representative of the decentralized Web3 entry point, with numerous wallet projects following closely behind, chasing the leading position with features like multi-chain support and experience optimization.

While everyone is looking for the next MetaMask among wallets, Odaily Planet Daily has discovered that Telegram, with its 800 million active users, is inadvertently eyeing this track and challenging MetaMask's position.

Although Telegram is not rooted in Web3, its anti-censorship characteristics have made it popular among Web3 users. Not only do most project teams use it as the main base for their communities, but the rapid rise of Bots in recent months has also made Telegram gradually transform from a single social application into a multifunctional Web3 entry point. (It can also be said that Telegram is "passively" accessing Web3.)

The explosive popularity of Unibot has driven the entire Telegram Bot sector, maintaining high enthusiasm. In the early days, there were various types of Telegram Bot functionalities, such as token swapping, copy trading, analysis, automated airdrop trading, and cross-chain asset transfers, with different projects specializing in each.

However, as time has progressed, DEX Bots have occupied the mainstream of the Bot sector by offering essential functions that traditional DEXs do not possess (such as sniping new listings, anti-MEV, and copy trading).

Currently, DEX Bots have formed a tripartite competition—Unibot, Banana Gun, and MaestroBot are sharing the market share of DEX Bots.

At the same time, Telegram announced on September 13 that it would choose the TON network as its Web3 infrastructure, and TON will also launch the TON Space wallet to serve Telegram users.

In summary, Telegram is gradually weakening the wallet's position as a Web3 entry point through Bots, allowing users to reduce the interaction process between wallets and on-chain applications to some extent; and it is collaborating with the TON network to make inroads into the wallet sector. Thus, Telegram is using Bots as a means to attack MetaMask.

MetaMask: A Combination of Strategies, Defending While Attacking

MetaMask is the main entry point for most people participating in Web3. According to data disclosed on the Consensys official website, MetaMask has reached a total of 100 million users, associated with 17,000 DApps, and has a daily interaction volume of 244,000 times. Relying on Ethereum's dominant position in public chains and the support of the Ethereum Foundation, it leads the hot wallet sector by a significant margin, making it the undisputed leader.

In the early days, MetaMask served merely as an asset management tool, or more like middleware for participating in on-chain activities. Users would deposit funds on exchanges to purchase tokens, which they would then send to MetaMask to interact with on-chain projects. However, in the past year, MetaMask has been continuously launching new initiatives aimed at gradually transitioning from a single ecosystem wallet to a universal Web3 entry point, moving from a more invisible infrastructure layer to a more visible product layer.

Since September of last year, MetaMask launched the MetaMask portfolio DApp, providing a suite of related products that combine most of the functionalities related to on-chain activities into a unified UI interface. This allows new users entering Web3 to participate in on-chain activities, such as token swapping, cross-chain bridges, and staking, without needing to understand the different functionalities of various on-chain applications. Especially with the recent addition of deposit and withdrawal channels, the entire process for users entering and exiting Web3 has been streamlined, extending the time users spend on MetaMask.

What truly transformed MetaMask into a universal Web3 entry point is the recently launched Snap feature. Snap is a plugin platform for user-customized wallet functionalities introduced by MetaMask. Major project teams can create relevant Snaps on MetaMask Flask without permission, integrating their functionalities into MetaMask. Currently, there are 34 third-party created Snaps that enable cross-platform trading insights, notifications, and interoperability features.

Snap enhances MetaMask's extensibility, allowing it to expand from EVM-compatible public chains and L2 ecosystems to non-EVM public chain ecosystems. This broadens its service range and enhances MetaMask's functional capabilities. Additionally, the integration of XMTP Snap gives MetaMask certain instant messaging capabilities.

By expanding its product offerings and Snap functionalities, MetaMask has broadened its channels for acquiring traffic and reduced the complexity for users in choosing to participate in different chains.

In the face of the offensive from Telegram and other wallets, MetaMask is solidifying its position by expanding its service range.

In comparison, Telegram and MetaMask adopt different strategies to capture Web3 traffic in their respective specialized fields. While they may not be in direct competition, the key point for a universal Web3 traffic entry is versatility; how to retain users with different needs within their own products is the core of the competition between the two.

Odaily Planet Daily summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of Telegram and MetaMask as follows:

Telegram's advantages lie in its traffic base of 800 million active users and the rapid development of Telegram Bots.

However, Telegram's disadvantages are also quite apparent. The decentralization level of Bot projects is not high, and there may be certain security risks. The social attributes and Web3 have not yet merged, giving a sense of relatively independent development.

MetaMask's advantages include a precise user demographic, the establishment of deposit and withdrawal channels that cover the entire Web3 process, and the expansion of MetaMask's coverage through the Snap feature.

MetaMask's disadvantages include a single source for acquiring new users, mostly relying on organic growth. The product offerings have a low correlation with the wallet, requiring time to educate users, which incurs high costs. The Snap feature is singular and does not have standout Snaps to attract user engagement.

Perhaps MetaMask has not considered that its competitors are not other wallets but players from adjacent fields; perhaps it is not important who ultimately wins. The Web3 industry hopes to attract fresh external traffic through the competition of diverse products with different attributes.