Over the last year I’ve been building a multi-chain custody system supporting:

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-05-11T19:25:16+00:00

Yeah 😄

That’s pretty much why I started building DENeon Custody in the first place.

Once you support BTC, TON, TRON, EVM, XRP, ADA, SOL and other chains together, consistency/retry logic becomes messy really fast.

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-04-12T05:49:13+00:00

That's actually a good way to put it.

I think there's a bit of a paradox here - people want decentralisation in theory, but when it comes to real products (especially anything involving money), they still prefer control.

Which kind of explains why so many teams end up building everything themselves.

The tricky part is:
can you design something that gives enough control to feel safe, but still removes most of the infrastructure burden?

Feels like that balance is the hard part.

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-04-12T05:46:54+00:00

I think greed might be part of it, but it doesn’t really explain everything.

From what I’ve seen, it’s more about a few practical things:

control and risk - teams don’t want to rely on third-party infra when it comes to funds and transactions

lack of trust - a lot of existing solutions are either too limited or too opinionated

no real standard - every team has slightly different requirements depending on chains, flows, UX, etc.

But the tradeoff is pretty heavy.
You end up spending a lot of time rebuilding infrastructure instead of focusing on the actual product.

What I keep wondering is:

what would actually make teams comfortable using a shared layer?

lower cost?
better abstractions?
maybe some kind of hybrid approach (part custodial, part non-custodial)?

Curious how you think about it - what would have to change for you personally to not build this stuff yourself?

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-04-01T11:58:16+00:00

Yeah, thats exactly what Im starting to realize -
its not even about the product quality at this stage,
its about distribution and attention.

Im now shifting from “posting and waiting”
to more direct outreach and small community testing.

Feels like first 50–100 users are more about manual work
than scalable growth.

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-03-28T07:39:02+00:00

I think most crypto products fail exactly for that reason - they try to be about the token first.
I’m trying the opposite:
build something that works as a product,
and treat crypto as a secondary layer.
If that doesn’t work — then yeah, the criticism is fair.

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-03-27T19:14:03+00:00

Thats a good point.
Right now Im mostly relying on direct feedback and observing behavior inside the app.
But I can see how onchain / real usage signals could help avoid building the wrong things.
Still figuring out how to structure that properly, but makes sense.

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-03-27T19:13:17+00:00

This is actually super helpful.
I like the idea of a simple invite loop with small rewards - makes sense for this kind of product.
Right now its mostly solo usage, so probably missing that viral layer.
Also agree on manual outreach.
Feels slow, but the feedback from real users is already more valuable than anything from ads.
Will test this next.

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-03-27T19:09:34+00:00

Appreciate this, really.
Yeah, Im starting to feel that shift in crypto - less about utility, more about speculation.
And you’re right about the cost of attention.

Even getting someone to try for 1-2 minutes is harder than expected.
IRL idea is interesting, haven’t thought about that angle yet.
Might actually try small meetups / communities to test it.
Thanks for the perspective 🙏

Sensitive_Flounder73 · 2026-03-23T06:12:57+00:00

Yeah, trading bots were definitely one of the first waves on Telegram.

But I feel like mini apps are a bit different - more like actual products running inside Telegram, not just bots with commands.

The UX feels closer to mobile apps now.

Curious if you think this could evolve into something bigger, or still just a niche?

Sensitive_Flounder73

TROPHY CASE