Hacker News Reader

Comment by talldayo | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

We're using blockchain as an identity layer, so that people do not need a phone number to use secure messaging. The messages live on a decentralized network, with storage abstracted. Meaning, all of the messages themselves do not live onchain.

Crypto allows for protocols to be monetized in new ways that actually help with fundamnetal problems of existing protocols like SMTP. For example, we can have a bulk-sender fee structure for rate-limiting, so people can pay for more timely delivery. This helps mitigate spam and increases quality of messages sent.

Node operators share in the revenue, so it really is decentralized messaging and economics, in which anyone can participate and earn.

Telegram also kinda tried something like this with the TON blockchain, and more recently with Mini Apps. It’s even quite easy to make TON payments with their telegram wallet. Buuuut they recently launched Telegram Stars, a more traditional non-blockchain premium currency, and their terms of service are that all payments for digital goods must be through stars (so not cryptocurrencies), because this allows them to give Apple and Google a cut, to not break the App Store/Play Store rules about digital goods/services.

So I imagine this messenger would run into similar problems: if you want to be on the apps stores, they probably can’t use cryptocurrencies, because Apple and Google want their 30%

> Crypto allows for protocols to be monetized in new ways

You've lost 99% of your potential users by drilling down on this. The people that use Matrix and OMEMO today aren't going to give your protocol the time of day; current iMessage, WhatsApp and Telegram users aren't likely to start paying for what they use for free.

Good luck. Just remember that all of your peers on the Blockchain failed to make crypto mainstream, one-and-all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com