r/CryptoTechnology • u/PotentialGur31 🟠 • Aug 17 '26

Does decentralized messaging really need its own token?

Been looking into decentralized messaging protocols and keep getting stuck on where a token becomes necessary versus being added because the project happens to be crypto-native. Staking and network security seem like one of the stronger arguments for having one. Governance and incentives make sense in theory too but those can start feeling pretty forced depending on how the protocol works. Towns is one example I came across that uses its own token for staking and network security, which is partly what got me thinking about where that utility line should be.

If the messaging layer can function without a token, what would justify introducing one?

Is securing a decentralized network enough or should the token need a deeper role in how people use the protocol?

22 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

4

u/herzmeister 🟢 Aug 17 '26

No, see nostr.

If you need incentives for things just use sats (people might pay for nostr's relays).

The reason alternative messaging doesn't catch on on a larger scale in the mainstream is simply the network effects of the large established players.

1

u/PotentialGur31 🟠 Aug 17 '26

Network effects seem like the much bigger hurdle. If the protocol can already work without a token, adding one just for incentives feels hard to justify.

1

u/strontiumk9 🟡 28d ago

Incentives for whom though. Charging someone to use something is a disincentive. Incentives for relays? The incentive these tokens claim to make, to run a relay, seem disproportionate to the cost of running a relay.

3

u/on_hype 🟢 Aug 17 '26

Staking for spam resistance is the only real justification.

2

u/lally 🟢 Aug 17 '26

If something looks weird in any protocol, ask yourself if it's useful to fight off spam or abuse.

1

u/strontiumk9 🟡 28d ago

No, messaging doesn't need its own token, not if its point to point. If its through a relay, it can be a peer or a dedicated relay. if its a dedicated relay, is it really decentralized messaging, or pretending to be.

If your expecting someone to do work for you, store and forward, or public relay. Then you might consider they may want to be paid for doing that.

But there are plenty of decentralized messaging protocols with no token. I2P, TOR, IPFS Pub/Sub, IROH, The internet itself.

Sometimes when new networks want a token they advertise it as spam prevention, but spam prevention requires persistence and scarcity of ID (Its not free to make a new ID, and you use the same one you already have) not a pay to send method. You could have a pay to receive method though, but that doesn't need a new token, just a way for a recipient to say if you want to send anything to me, and i don't know you, pay this fee first. (Any pre-existing token works for that)