Why Instant Messaging Should Not Be Implemented as a DApp on Public Blockchains

Blockchain is driving a new wave of decentralized services, with Bitcoin proving the viability of distributed ledgers and Ethereum enabling smart contracts, but the rapid growth of blockchain applications brings performance and scalability challenges for public chains.

Three future directions are identified: general-purpose public chains, shared resource pools, and vertical public chains that serve specific platform‑level applications. This article focuses on the third direction—platform‑level communication.

Running instant‑messaging (IM) directly as a DApp on a public blockchain is problematic. A suitable blockchain solution should be evaluated from three dimensions: economic (intrinsic token loops, accounting needs, production‑distribution issues), business (trust gaps, need for disintermediation, core scenario relevance), and technical (whether blockchain is required, beneficial, or the only feasible solution).

Using IM as a case study, the article argues that blockchain’s decentralized nature can replace both the service platform and its organization, turning communication maintenance into a mining‑like process driven by economic incentives.

The analysis outlines three key requirements for a communication‑focused public chain: operability (handling vastly higher request volumes than pure accounting), business suitability (balancing on‑chain costs with revenue potential), and communication security (ensuring privacy despite blockchain’s transparency).

Existing blockchain IM projects are grouped into four categories:

Communication‑chain projects (AsChain) that run messaging as a core service alongside the ledger (e.g., BlockMessage, Skrumble Network).

General‑purpose chain projects (OnChain) where messaging is a DApp on top of a universal blockchain (e.g., TON, Mixin, Status).

Currency‑focused projects (ByChain) where chat is a secondary feature to wallet or trading functions (e.g., CoinMeet, Bixin).

Pure communication projects (NoChain) that are decentralized but not blockchain‑based (e.g., BitMessage).

The article concludes that a dedicated communication public chain can provide a fair, shared, and autonomous network, enabling decentralized messaging without a single platform monopolizing the service, and that the choice of architecture depends on the project’s vision and technical trade‑offs.