Migration from Telegram Communities

Given the recent loss of our original Telegram groups, and the lack of response from support staff. It has been discussed by some of the community, as well as the team to sunset the Telegram Communities. The current reasoning I and others have arrive at are as follows

  1. For new investors it is a red flag for a ~8000 Follower twitter account to redirect to an official telegram of only ~60 users. Makes the project seem like a scam, or that it is abandoned
  2. Telegram is rife with scams form users impersonating team members and fraudulent groups impersonating the protocol and inviting users from the legitimate groups. Given that the goal of RCAs is to broaden our userbase to become an entry point for DeFi newbies. Exposing them to an insecure platform like TG could be detrimental to this image.


  1. Telegram is still useful as an additional point of traffic for new users to find and connect with Armor and it’s community
  2. Some individuals solely interface with TG vs alternative, like Discord. This could lead to the exclusion of community members.

I have also attached a simple poll here, to gather votes on this decision. If you have more detailed opinions you want to make clear you are welcome to reply to this post.


1 Like

Yep, all for this if not just until we rebrand and start marketing. Makes sense atm and I’ve always preferred Discord anyway.

1 Like

I voted “Undecided”. Argumentation follows:

  • I cannot deny the arguments presented in the OP. I’m of the opinion they cannot be disproven, so they will always hold some merit.

  • I however I’m of the opinion, that TG presence is not the center of the protocol’s virtue. If the protocol’s usecase is sound (and it is), and if the rebrand effort bears quality fruit (and I hope it will), and if the marketing campaign is strong (and we all hope it will be), then these are the real engine of adoption. What anyone would think of our puny unpopulated TG channels is insignificant, given there’s professional marketing going on.
    And besides, it’s totally understandable that some social channels would need to be restarted after a rebrand that will change the image of the protocol. Yeah, sure, maybe a rename wouldn’t have lost all our registrations, but are we not relying namely on the marketing campaign to attract more people to our socials? I mean, with no marketing and no advertisement it shouldn’t be a surprise socials are not populated. Do we even rely on attracting people before rebranding and marketing? If no, then why should a weak social presence be a concern? And we even expect rebranding and marketing campaign to commence soon enough…

I just think we shouldn’t misguide ourselves to think that the Protocol depends on Telegram. We should return the focus where it belongs, and that is the socials depend on what the Protocol will be like after rebrand. Until then… it’s just hard to have a definitive opinion.

And there’s also another set of arguments:

  • Current TG channels are practically dysfunctional, so dawning them will spare us the hussle.
  • We have devoted supporters, die-hard investors, hodling for dear life for so long a time, that prefer TG, some of them never making contact with the Team outside TG. Telegram channels aren’t that much of a hustle after all and can hardly justify abandoning live support for the Knights there (although “abandoning” is too harsh expression).

All good reasons for me to vote “Undecided”.

1 Like

I very much agree with Xaumana and can see where he’s coming from. A great project with a relative use case should be more of the focus over a community chat, but my rebuttal is based on surveys by other communities and investors I follow. When DYOR on a project, there is a basic checklist that informed investors that I’ve talked to use. There is a high consensus of this mindset.

  1. Use case/White paper
  2. Team credentials
  3. High level supporters/Investors
  4. Solid social media presence
  5. Marketing

These of course are the basics. After speaking with many investors after being in the crypto space for 5 years, having a solid TG or discord with thousands of members DOES have a significant impact on whether they invest or not. So IMHO, this is just as important as the project itself.

Since we do have a discord that currently captures a majority of our community, I have voted “yes”. Even though I prefer TG. Just my 3 pennies.

I can’t contradict, it really is as you say.

But it’s worth mentioning the new TG channel is growing. It was less than 50 profiles a week ago, now it’s >60. A miniscule growth, I know. Just saying it was going down when it was ~3900, it’s going up now that it’s ~60. Kind of natural… but it should remind us social population is a function of time, given there’s a popularization campaign.

I suppose, in the beginning, the TG channels were populated in huge waves with the initial Armor launch hype? Soo… Won’t they repopulate with the rebrand-RCA launch hype?

And IF the Protocol intends to have TG channels in some point in time… then isn’t the best moment for this namely the rebrand-RCA launch starting point? Because, it seems to me, it will be much more difficult to populate a new social channel in a later point in time when there is no popularity pump wave.

If the Protocol does not intend to have anything to do with Telegram ever again (frankly, it’s absolutely justified), then of course, shut it down.

But consider this also - If the Protocol ever becomes a living DeFi legend and achieves the crypto-wide coverage revolution it’s aiming at, won’t the Protocol benefit from supporting as much socials as it can?

I’m not vouching for anything, I’m just trying to convince myself in one particular direction.

I like Telegram, but voted to have it removed at least until rebrand. I think the Armor community is small enough that we should focus on one area, and IMO Discord is a better platform and less spammy. We should focus on increasing engagement on Discord.