# SimpleX Chat is now a crypto project selling tokens and NFTs **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/simplex-chat-is-now-a-crypto-project-selling-tokens-and-nfts/32490 **Category:** General **Tags:** software **Created:** 2025-10-31T20:55:43Z **Posts:** 41 ## Post 1 by @jerm — 2025-10-31T20:55:43Z > **[Community Vouchers: Your Freedom and Security](https://simplex.chat/token/)** ![image](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/1/164b24e0bfe49f7b5959955fded9e4bc243ef6e7.jpeg) ![image](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/d/da34e72090c6e33bac4f7fdbd8c452e0c20a3959.png) [https://xcancel.com/SimpleXChat/status/1887489846848999613#m](https://xcancel.com/SimpleXChat/status/1887489846848999613#m) [https://xcancel.com/epoberezkin/status/1983299739283075319#m](https://xcancel.com/epoberezkin/status/1983299739283075319#m) --- ## Post 2 by @anon57862721 — 2025-10-31T21:09:33Z Am I crazy or am I seeing contradictory info here? --- ## Post 3 by @jerm — 2025-10-31T21:18:25Z yes, contradictory. --- ## Post 4 by @Valynor — 2025-10-31T21:21:40Z ~80%+ of all NFTs are a scam. Even associating yourself with NFTs is a huge red flag :triangular_flag: to me. --- ## Post 5 by @anon57862721 — 2025-10-31T21:32:17Z That’s what I was thinking. But I am also very confused here. What a shame. --- ## Post 6 by @Pedja — 2025-10-31T23:59:20Z NFTs and crypto tokens, exactly what privacy tech was missing. --- ## Post 7 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-01T00:16:17Z What exactly is wrong with this? They are designing a decentralized and cryptographically sound way to fund the decentralized server pool of SimpleX Chat. This seems good from a sustainability perspective. Is there a potential for a scam here that I need more in-depth knowledge to pick up on? The only concern I see is that they lied about it in February (the not planning part). --- ## Post 8 by @M-A9NPV — 2025-11-01T01:43:39Z I really hope they don’t shit the bed. I really enjoy what they are right now. --- ## Post 9 by @maqp — 2025-11-01T09:15:08Z ![image](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/e/e2729f8b3a81661718c101e519f706447e749eee.png) Funny how despite the overhaul of site design they didn’t bother fixing their lies by omission. The service advertises itself as no identifiers, but the server has access to your IP-address. The client could actively prevent that by routing over Tor by default, but they choose not to do that. There’s exactly two service providers hosting the entire public server infrastructure: Akamai and Runonflux. Thus there’s about 50% chance the service provider is able to perform end-to-end correlation attacks to determine when you talk to your buddy. So much for complete privacy. The CEO disappeared yet again, like fart to Sahara, before addressing this in the [last thread](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/simplex-vs-cwtch-who-is-right/19256). And now the project is pivoting to the [famously not-at-all scammy world of web3](https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/). * * * As always if you want E2EE messaging with offline-messages, use [Signal](https://signal.org/). If you want metadata-resistant messaging, use [Cwtch.](https://docs.cwtch.im/) --- ## Post 10 by @anon57862721 — 2025-11-01T09:18:02Z This is such a bummer. SimpleX showed so much promise. I’m now more glad Signal exists. --- ## Post 11 by @saturny — 2025-11-01T10:06:45Z I don’t really get why so many people seems to be allergic to cryptocurrencies. It’s not because there are a lot of scams in the web3 space that this has to be one as well ! Even if the vast majority of cryptocurrencies are not private, they do solve the problem of sending money in a decentralized fashion (avoiding censorship) to virtually everyone in the world. With fiat money, if your bank or your state is not ok with a transaction, you’re just screwed. Blockchains like Ethereum solve exactly that problem and do it well. I believe that this announcement from Simple X would require a little bit more research so we actually understand what is its purpose - or at least a bit more credit until the testnet is actually live. --- ## Post 12 by @hakavlad — 2025-11-01T10:06:51Z \>To cover server costs securely and privately. And how this breaks privacy of mere users? --- ## Post 13 by @maqp — 2025-11-01T10:14:12Z > [@saturny](#): > > I don’t really get why so many people seems to be allergic to cryptocurrencies. Maybe a professor of computer science can teach you why why it’s horrible on technical level. > **[Dr. Nicholas Weaver: A Computer Scientist's Perspective on Cryptocurrencies...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abcKL_x_aoA)** > > Dr. Nicholas Weaver’s well-known lectures on cryptocurrencies explain why he believes it needs to be “burned with fire.” Today, we speak to Dr. Weaver, an ex... > **[Computer Security 161 Cryptocurrency Lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nv0Ol-R5Q)** > > Lecture from Computer Science 161 on Cryptocurrency.Subtitles were edited by myself. --- ## Post 14 by @lyricism — 2025-11-01T19:03:05Z “Informative, and unfortunate” > [@saturny](#): > > I don’t really get why so many people seems to be allergic to cryptocurrencies. I think it’s because aside from very few projects (confidently I’d really only say Bitcoin and Monero) all other cryptos are actual ponzi schemes or at minimum unregistered securities solely intended to enrich their creators with zero actual financial utility. Why does SimpleX need a crypto token? What benefit does it provide other than a way to provide a funding mechanism for the developers? Because if it’s just that it really is just a fraudulent unregistered security, and despite many crypto users’ allergy to anything even resembling a financial regulation, unregistered securities bypassing the rules that come with normal security issuance are just factually bad for everyone except the issuer. --- ## Post 15 by @arise1984 — 2025-11-01T19:23:07Z Thats too bad they’re going to yet another bespoke in-house crypto. Should’ve gone with already established Monero or something. Even Signal’s MobileCoin still left a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not allergic to crypto per se, as a whole, but these yet-another-bespoke-token really induce spider tingling, that deep down feeling lol. Edit: its not bespoke in-house, its Ethereum erc-20 token. Indeed I’m allergic to that haha --- ## Post 16 by @rmd — 2025-11-01T19:41:14Z > [@lyricism](#): > > aside from very few projects (confidently I’d really only say Bitcoin and Monero) all other cryptos are actual ponzi schemes […] with zero actual financial utility. I would also add ethereum to your list of projects with utility - Bitcoin - first crypto currency which started with good intentions. - Monero - have private payments. - Ethereum - have smart contracts which a lot of other projects depend on. There are also a lot more projects with good intentions, but they did not grow big enough, so I don’t know them :smiling_face: --- ## Post 17 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-01T22:03:19Z > [@lyricism](#): > > What benefit does it provide other than a way to provide a funding mechanism for the developers? Did you read the article? It is a funding mechanism for servers, not the developers. It uses smart contracts to force the servers to provide what was purchased before they receive the payment. > [@maqp](#): > > There’s exactly two service providers hosting the entire public server infrastructure: Akamai and Runonflux. Thus there’s about 50% chance the service provider is able to perform end-to-end correlation attacks to determine when you talk to your buddy. So much for complete privacy. I wonder if a decentralized funding mechanism for servers could help with that? > [@arise1984](#): > > Should’ve gone with already established Monero or something. [https://xcancel.com/SimpleXChat/status/1983849427640193293#m](https://xcancel.com/SimpleXChat/status/1983849427640193293#m) Monero does not provide the utility needed for what they are trying to design. It is not just a pop-up dialog with a donation address for each of the servers. It is a much more structured approach that needs things like smart contracts that are provided by or work with zkEVM. These negative responses are so odd. The biggest thing SimpleX needs is a more diverse array of server providers, and this seems like an interesting attempt to incentivize that. Is this not beneficial to privacy? And they are going to be running a testnet version of the feature that anyone can participate in, which indicates to me that their intentions are to improve SimpleX rather than “scam” people. Not that anyone has provided any evidence of this being a scam. --- ## Post 18 by @User53 — 2025-11-02T17:02:53Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > What exactly is wrong with this? They are designing a decentralized and cryptographically sound way to fund the decentralized server pool of SimpleX Chat. This seems good from a sustainability perspective. I would understand the usage of such a token to finance the infrastructure, but if they implement something like this, it needs to have high privacy standards. A possible solution could be to use Cashu. > [@maqp](#): > > The service advertises itself as no identifiers, but the server has access to your IP-address. The client could actively prevent that by routing over Tor by default, but they choose not to do that. > > There’s exactly two service providers hosting the entire public server infrastructure: Akamai and Runonflux. Thus there’s about 50% chance the service provider is able to perform end-to-end correlation attacks to determine when you talk to your buddy. So much for complete privacy. Nobody is stopping you from connecting over Tor/VPN to the smp servers --- ## Post 19 by @maqp — 2025-11-02T17:18:10Z > [@User53](#): > > Nobody is stopping you from connecting over Tor/VPN to the smp servers If you had read the thread I linked, you’d know what my gripe was: The application claims it **by default** has no identifiers and that it’s better design choice than Cwtch, that has a long term identifier (the P2P Onion Service identity key). SimpleX does however have a long term identifier, your IP-address. It doesn’t mask it with Tor by default. Yet it tries to pitch this as an improvement over tools like Cwtch that hide the IP-address with the best way computer scientists know a low latency overlay network can hide it: onion routing. So it’s not about if it’s possible to route SimpleX via Tor, it absolutely is, and they do decent job with automatic server domain address switches after you install Tor and make the settings adjustments to use the SOCKS proxy. It’s about implying it does better than that by default. It doesn’t. Read the thread for my detailed argument. --- ## Post 20 by @jonah — 2025-11-02T20:59:20Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > It is not just a pop-up dialog with a donation address for each of the servers. Why don’t they just do that though? --- ## Post 21 by @lyricism — 2025-11-02T21:55:16Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > Did you read the article? It is a funding mechanism for servers, not the developers. It uses smart contracts to force the servers to provide what was purchased before they receive the payment. If you believe that just because they say that’s what it’s for that must be the actual reason behind it, then I have a bridge to sell you. You don’t need a crypto token to do this. Tor is a perfect example of a project that has already accomplished a wide array of community relays without one, and it is far more successful than any projects that do use “tokenomics”. > [@anon38904370](#): > > These negative responses are so odd. The biggest thing SimpleX needs is a more diverse array of server providers, and this seems like an interesting attempt to incentivize that. Is this not beneficial to privacy? Just allow anyone to run community federated servers discoverable via DHT. Hell you can even provide a token-less POW where enrolling a server requires some complex work to be done first as an anti-spam mechanism. > [@anon38904370](#): > > Not that anyone has provided any evidence of this being a scam. Have _you_ read the article? If the intentions are only to incentivize server operators why are they going to take a massive 40% cut out of that incentive? > they will be locked in a smart contract, and only released once servers have provided capacity to the users, with the funds shared between server operators and SimpleX network, with operators receiving up to 60% --- ## Post 22 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-03T00:10:18Z > [@jonah](#): > > Why don’t they just do that though? Because that would accomplish an entirely different goal? This is an attempt to create an enforceable method for servers to exchange larger scale services for funding. You can have both though. No one is forced to use this feature, and server operators could already give out donation addresses externally. > [@lyricism](#): > > Just allow anyone to run community federated servers discoverable via DHT. With what incentive? And I would be interested in an actual attempt to provide a design for how this could be implemented in SimpleX. > [@lyricism](#): > > Hell you can even provide a token-less POW where enrolling a server requires some complex work to be done first as an anti-spam mechanism. Not sure how this is relevant to boosting the diversity of servers. > [@lyricism](#): > > Have _you_ read the article? If the intentions are only to incentivize server operators why are they going to take a massive 40% cut out of that incentive? > > > they will be locked in a smart contract, and only released once servers have provided capacity to the users, with the funds shared between server operators and SimpleX network, with operators receiving up to 60% Interesting that you left off the next sentence: > SimpleX network funds will be managed by smart contracts, and will be used for governance and development as defined by the contracts. So, where is the scam? Can you use the information in the article to actually construct a viable scam they could _pull off_? I don’t follow how the servers receiving 60% with 40% going towards governance and development means their intentions aren’t to improve SimpleX. Maybe my second reply was too black and white, but incentivizing and funding servers is clearly the primary goal. --- ## Post 23 by @jonah — 2025-11-03T00:13:10Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > Because that would accomplish an entirely different goal? > > This is an attempt to create an enforceable method for servers to exchange larger scale services for funding. How would simple in-app payments not accomplish this goal exactly though? _Take payment, provide service_ has been a model which has existed for the entire history of… money, I guess. --- ## Post 25 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-03T00:19:15Z I do not know what happened to my first reply. It was immediately edited after I posted it to remove the quote for some reason. * * * Because the SimpleX network can enforce the completion of services before the payment is received through smart contracts. Why should they not require this enforcement as a criteria for their design? --- ## Post 26 by @jonah — 2025-11-03T00:22:42Z I think if you quote the _entire_ post you’re replying to, the system will remove it because you can just use the reply button, and take up much less space, and people will assume you’re replying to the entire post. The quotes are for replying to specific portions of a post. * * * > [@anon38904370](#): > > enforce the completion of services before the payment is received I’m not totally convinced about how _necessary_ that is, but I suppose that does make sense :+1: --- ## Post 27 by @Anvil — 2025-11-04T19:00:58Z SimpleX’s VC funding model is very prone to enshittification. I would not be surprised if this is just the first step down that path. Not that Signal’s financial situation is much more sustainable, but it has thus far stood the test of time, and it has a broad base of support from which it can draw donations if things get rough. Time will tell I guess. --- ## Post 28 by @Libre_Software_Enjoyer — 2025-11-04T19:04:59Z Coudl your summaroze his points or explain how we enable decentraliced transactions without crypto currencies? Many people just don’t want to be entirely dependent on some banks and big tech firms controlling all of our payment infrastructure. --- ## Post 29 by @Libre_Software_Enjoyer — 2025-11-04T19:08:10Z > [@lyricism](#): > > Hell you can even provide a token-less POW where enrolling a server requires some complex work to be done first as an anti-spam mechanism. How does a POW help to sustain a server besides deterring some spammers? Better to charge a extreme small fee for the service paid over something private and cheap --- ## Post 30 by @lyricism — 2025-11-04T19:40:00Z > [@Libre_Software_Enjoyer](#): > > How does a POW help to sustain a server besides deterring some spammers? I think you should reread what you quoted and how you responded to it because the answer to your question is in both what you quoted and your own question, but you are asking it as if it somehow counters what I had said in the part you quoted. > [@lyricism](#): > > as an anti-spam mechanism > [@Libre_Software_Enjoyer](#): > > besides deterring some spammers? --- ## Post 31 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-05T05:27:52Z > [@Anvil](#): > > I would not be surprised if this is just the first step down that path. What aspect of SimpleX Chat does this enshittify? --- ## Post 32 by @Anvil — 2025-11-05T14:49:05Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > What aspect of SimpleX Chat does this enshittify? I have yet to se an in-house crypto project that has any real utility. There are two major barriers: (1) nobody wants them so they hold little to no value and can’t be spent anywhere and (2) if mainstream exchanges ever adopt them, it takes a while. Most are overt scams or at best they are just failed projects. It would be nice if I am proven wrong, but like others here, I doubt it will be useful for the stated purpose, which makes me suspicious as to whether there is some other hidden purpose. As I said, time will tell. --- ## Post 33 by @gothic939 — 2025-11-05T17:08:59Z Looks like the token is not from the SimpleX team. They’ve already said they are not releasing any token and that this one is likely a scam. If you use SimpleX, just ignore the crypto stuff and stick to the official app and site. --- ## Post 34 by @lyricism — 2025-11-05T17:46:51Z It’s from their website, are you claiming their site has been hijacked by a crypto scam? Their claims they aren’t working on a token are from months ago at the most recent from what I’ve seen, so unless they’ve said something since this has been on their website it seems likely they’ve just changed their minds. --- ## Post 35 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-06T02:03:41Z That doesn’t answer my question. --- ## Post 36 by @Anvil — 2025-11-06T03:46:58Z If a VC-backed company with undisclosed investors and no financial transparency diverting resources from actually useful improvements to their project to implement a convoluted over-engineered funding strategy with dubious benefit at best, given the context of many similar projects using similar strategies to conduct scams and failed experiments doesn’t sound like it could represent the beginnings of enshittification to you, then I’m not sure what to tell you. --- ## Post 37 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-06T04:58:32Z > [@Anvil](#): > > diverting resources from actually useful improvements to their project So you claim that current features will be indirectly “enshittified” by the existence of this new feature requiring too much man-power and resources to maintain (this new feature being one that generates funding for development btw)? Just want to be on the same page here. > [@Anvil](#): > > many similar projects using similar strategies Citation needed. > [@Anvil](#): > > to conduct scams I will pose to you the same question I posed to lyricism: > [@anon38904370](#): > > Can you use the information in the article to actually construct a viable scam they could _pull off_? > [@Anvil](#): > > failed experiments They are going to run a testnet for “experiments”. They aren’t experimenting on users. > [@Anvil](#): > > sound like it could represent the beginnings of enshittification to you Not at all. --- ## Post 38 by @Libre_Software_Enjoyer — 2025-11-06T19:57:01Z > [@lyricism](#): > > I think you should reread what you quoted and how you responded to it because the answer to your question is in both what you quoted and your own question, but you are asking it as if it somehow counters what I had said in the part you quoted. Spammers are not the only problem. Implementing crypto micro payments could be used to ensure longterm sustainability --- ## Post 39 by @ignoramous — 2025-11-07T22:15:39Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > Because the SimpleX network can enforce the completion of services before the payment is received through smart contracts Service providers can also sign _actual_ contracts to deliver services. On their site ([mirror](https://archive.vn/f2XIt)), the section on “Why not existing Crypto?” is curiously worded: > The price of cryptocurrencies is determined speculatively, and not based on costs. The fact that they can be freely traded and transferred exposes existing cryptocurrencies and tokens to financial regulations. 1. Ignores the existence of well-regulated stable coins. 2. Side-steps the fact that SimpleX, the company, itself is bound to UK laws. And so, their voting rights & the 40% cut they propose to take to maintain the stewardship of this _Community Voucher_ scheme itself is not unencumbered from regulatory purview. I mean, read the disclaimer buried in the footer: “…details are subject to legal review”. I understand the economics enabled by tokens (I’m a big fan of global stable-coin & micro-payment networks), I just don’t buy the reasons SimpleX is selling to us. --- ## Post 40 by @anon38904370 — 2025-11-08T01:19:14Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > Service providers can also sign _actual_ contracts to deliver services. Obviously, relying on the legal system to compensate you **when** you get scammed is far superior to **preventing** scams in the first place through cryptography… > [@ignoramous](#): > > On their site ([mirror](https://archive.vn/f2XIt)), the section on “Why not existing Crypto?” is curiously worded: > > > The price of cryptocurrencies is determined speculatively, and not based on costs. The fact that they can be freely traded and transferred exposes existing cryptocurrencies and tokens to financial regulations. > > 1. Ignores the existence of well-regulated stable coins. > 2. Side-steps the fact that SimpleX, the company, itself is bound to UK laws. And so, their voting rights & the 40% cut they propose to take to maintain the stewardship of this _Community Voucher_ scheme itself is not unencumbered from regulatory purview. > > I mean, read the disclaimer buried in the footer: “…details are subject to legal review”. > > I understand the economics enabled by tokens (I’m a big fan of global stable-coin & micro-payment networks), I just don’t buy the reasons SimpleX is selling to us. This is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Did you mean to write a separate reply? But, you are basically complaining that they ignored the existence of stable coins, a thing that is irrelevant to what they are trying to design, and speculating about regulation. Ok? This doesn’t show that their design goals are bad or a scam. --- ## Post 41 by @ignoramous — 2025-11-08T05:55:57Z > [@anon38904370](#): > > relying on the legal system to compensate you **when** you get scammed is far superior to **preventing** scams in the first place through cryptography Right. The “legal system” is an effective deterrent: Their disclaimer (in the footer) is proof enough. > [@anon38904370](#): > > you are basically complaining I’m not “complaining”. Their position that “price of cryptocurrencies is determined speculatively” ignores stablecoins? > [@anon38904370](#): > > design is bad or a scam Don’t know about their design (is it public?), but their one-page excuse to sell _Community Vouchers_ comes off pretty bad, yeah.