I think it won't be problematic as if someone doesn't want to create wallet they dont have to. So this payment option will be for only those who wants to enable it.
All that things are not necessary, they could create a separate app "Signal Pay" and everybody who wants it can use that.
It made no sense to implement everything in one app.
WeChat would disagree [1].
There is definitely a place for payments in a social app. Combine that with potential for increased user adoption because of that ("please download signal so I can pay you easily") and I don't see this as inherently bad. But they should have used a reputable coin instead of some scammy pyramid token.
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/wechat-statistics/#:~:te....
Not in a country that has free, (de facto) instant bank transfers (Faster Payments).
If the problem there is that you need someone's bank details and not just their phone number, there's Barclays' Pingit.
What exactly is the rationale that makes payments within a chat app 'inferior' or 'unneeded' just because there are separate services available (e.g. Barclays' Pingit)?