Is Telegram Useful to ICOs?

Truth be told, I hadn't known of Telegram until I joined the crypto space. There's no denying that if you are floating an ICO you have to open a Telegram channel. Apparently, over 95% of ICOs rely on Telegram to get information out about their project.

So why is Telegram so popular? One major reason is because previous channels were filled with spamming and spoofing. Now, the number of subscribers in an ICO's telegram channel provides a measure of how much hype the project is generating. Another reason is that joining a Telegram channel for high profile ICOs will give one an exclusive opportunity to land on the whitelist.

Now, if you have participated in any ICO, then you have to join their Telegram channel -if they have one. In there you will find comments, questions and all manner of price speculations regarding that particular token.

Let me hear your thoughts about your experience with Telegram in regards to ICOs.

Another point to consider is, telegram offers better means of communication with the devs and founders,

This in turn eases the investors mind and and investor can get a quick response to any questions they have, almost instantly because the chances of same questions being repeatedly asked is really high, therefore community members help each other out.

@KurdishKing True. At times, I find some of the members in those channels annoying. They ask the same questions over and over again. It's true that some of the subscribers are there to spread FUD but generally, it's always a good place to know what's happening regarding a particular token.

@cryptoqueen Exactly, when i see my coins pumping, telegram is the first source i go to, to see what the hell happened.

I've been a fan of Telegram for a long time. I respect their aim of providing a free and private means of communicating. But they've done much more than that. Their back-end systems seem to work brilliantly, it is easy to use on both mobile and computer, and allows thousands of people in a channel as well as bots.

Part of the attraction might also be the requirement to provide a mobile number to start, but Viber, WeChat, and many others also do this. I'm just happy that they're getting plenty of new users this way.

I think it's great but the busier groups are bedlam!!

One of my clients has several Telegram channels for different subjects like general, bounty, community managers, competitions etc, I think it's a fab idea and they can direct people asking questions to the right channel where they can concentrate on the subject.

FYI the same clients have a core management team and this team manages all their Telegram channels 24/7, they are based all over the world so you can always get hold of one of the directors at any time, I think it's an awesome way to manage your business!

@costatrader said in Is Telegram Useful to ICOs?:

I think it's great but the busier groups are bedlam!!

This, indeed is very true.
chaotic and rude trolls are also lurking in the background and waiting for the right moment to strike FUD and rake in poor newbs hard earned cash.

@kurdishking ugh indeed! Constant monitoring is the way to go with these things for sure.

But high volume channels like verge who currently have over 38k members, their chat is relatively clean.

every 5 mins there is a bot warning of t/c for auto remove and ban.

i think it is because they are fully utilizing spam/ad bot features in their favor. but nonetheless, like u mentioned, constant monitoring is still a MUST.

Let's not get started on Telegram's (lack of) ICO though - that'd be a whole other thread.

But nice for them, that they don't need the money I guess!

Seriously though from the point of view of advising ICOs, the difficulty with Telegram is it limits your audience to those already in the technical space, and if you rely on it as your only channel to communicate with potential investors, then you exclude multitudes. At the very least you need a strategy to bring people in as new users, but the sheer inertia involved means that it's far better to have an integrated social media strategy and go out and talk to potential backers where they already are - and that's Facebook, Twitter, Insta etc.

A colleague of mine wrote a good article about this actually:

Right now many people think that the number of people in Telegram group of particular ICO - is the first criteria..
And if you have less than 10K of users - that's the bad sign.
Many ICOs use airdrop, bounty ways to attract members to their Telegram groups. Some ICO just buy the audience)) Yes it's much faster and cheaper to do it, than to grow the audience in a natural way.
Also for many ICOs Telegram is the first and most important way of communication. Very often news appear first in Telegram groups.

So I think that at least for a while it will remain main tool for ICOs. Then something else will evolve.

It's a shame that this industry always feels the need to fast track their numbers by buying fans/followers/members, sure it's a quick and easy way to appear to be successful but what value does it actually bring to them? If only they would take the time and make the effort to organically build their audiences on Telegram and on other social too. Speaking of other social, surely the need to reach audiences who aren't already into crypto is crucial? Otherwise the pool of potential investors is seriously limited, you won't find many people outside of the crypto space on Telegram so they need to start being present in the places where their potential customers actually do hang out.

Please stop buying followers and start organically building your communities, if you don't have the time or the inclination to do that, there are reasonably priced companies out there who will do it for you!!

@Costatrader I feel your sentiments and yes, companies need to device organic strategies of reaching more people. However, one can't dismiss the impact that Telegram has when it comes to ICOs. After reading a project's whitepaper, I always join their telegram channel. Through the comments made therein and the responsiveness of the admin I get to gauge the overall organization and validity of the project.

In these Telegram channels some members ask very vital questions. Some of the responses given by the admins are so mixed up and immediately red flags go up.

Oh absolutely, there's no doubt that Telegram is extremely effective in the industry and you can certainly get a good grasp on what a project is all about from reading questions and seeing how they are answered, it's super-important to have that network. I think the problem is that for some startups, their focus is solely on Telegram, Reddit and the like that they are neglecting the more mainstream networks which is making the crypto industry into a niche, which in turn the mainstream audience find intimidating to try to become a part of.

Telegram needs to be a (large?) part of a marketing campaign but it also needs to go hand-in-hand with Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and the like, however difficult they are all determined to make it for us so far!!

I'm going to have to disagree with @Costatrader by agreeing with [preferred pronoun] completely. Telegram is not the place for bringing in new people from outside the crypto community. But that's not because it is a tool mainly used by people with some tech savvy. It is because Telegram has no public face for channels at all.

Saying that Telegram is no good for attracting customers is like saying phone numbers are no good for marketing. Places like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, even Reddit are public facing and discoverable by searching. And @Costatrader is absolutely right about needing to use these tools to bring in new customers. But once you've got their interest, providing them with a Telegram channel is really good. Particularly for the people new to crypto who are likely to have a lot of questions and will be more likely to invest if their concerns are addressed.

So I think this thread is talking about something really important to the community, but I think we need to define the alternatives to Telegram as platforms like Viber, WeChat, Skype, and so on. The platforms that offer both a public face and chat/call functionality such as Facebook and Google+ do a poor job of managing large numbers of users. But maybe those services also have some place in this discussion.

@timmarsh As for now all the services you mentioned can' be alternatives. Viber, WeChat, Skype are good for personal communication, even for small groups, but I don't even remember that some ICO used any of that service. For big numbers of users it seems Telegram is better option.

Discord might be alternative and some projects use it, but I think with Telegram it's much easier to get big numbers of participants, as people don't need to register, sign up, they can only join group.

And sites like Facebook and Google+ I can say it's another direction. Well, facebook is still popular especially on many markets. But Google+ is definitely a failure as social network. (However when it's started I was optimistic and used it myself)

G+ is still vital for website ranking though so don't write it off just yet. I tend to automatically re-post stuff from other networks on G+ as it's like the wild west after the bad guys came along and shot everyone on there! I never visit or interact but still post where I can to keep those Google bots busy.

@soc1albutterfly Yes I remember years ago when I was active in SEO there was such thought they G+ affects ranking. And may be it still does in a way. May be you remember also the days when there was "+1" button which web-master could put on their web-site?
I remember that some colleagues even wrote a +1 bot who would do it for sites with different accounts)

Now I check I still have 865 followers on G+ but when I post something (i.e. link) I have no interaction, almost no clicks (may be 1 or 2 occasionally, no comments...)

Log in to reply

Enjoyed this post? Consider registering for more interesting content!