TON Ecosystem Faces Critical ROI Challenges Due to Structural Flaws and User Retention Issues

This is the core fundamental issue with Web3 products: you pay for onboarding into the ecosystem, not into your specific product. Out of every $100 spent on user acquisition in TON, $80 goes towards explaining what a wallet is, how to create one, why TON has nothing to do with Telegram, how to buy tokens, and why it's safe. Only the remaining $20 is used to persuade the user to click on your button. Considering the profit: The $80 is absorbed by the network, allowing the user to visit any other dApp, which is often what happens. You're the first impression. If addiction occurs, it’s not with you. This is why the question of ecosystem "retention" isn’t about goodwill but about a fair profit redistribution mechanism. If a project handles onboarding and the network profits from the user later — supporting the project isn’t charity, it’s revenue sharing. Grants, boosts in ecosystem channels, infrastructure support, cross-push — these aren’t just "support for startups," they’re profit splits. The ecosystem earns when a project brings a user. Without the network sharing part of this profit, onboarding makes no sense for the project. It’s just a loss-making GTM with an unknown LTV. Many blockchain funds and ecosystems misunderstand this. Grants aren’t gratitude — they’re tools for project retention. Without incentives, projects will direct users to another blockchain where they won’t just be gateways but will receive a share of the user’s subsequent network life. Projects are the frontier, leading users from dark Web2 environments, teaching and waiting for them to become viable blockchain users. To attract genuine, active users instead of just empty wallets or tap-to-earn farmers, the ecosystem must share. Otherwise, no one will build bridges into your network. Conclusion: The fundamental problem is negative ROI. Let’s piece it together: Building on TON is extremely expensive: raw tools, complex asynchronous models, lack of composability, and the need for optimistic off-chain UX make development 10-15 times costlier and slower than on EVM or Solana. Audience — elusive: access to real, paying, interested users through Telegram is illusory. The real on-chain base is tiny. Tap-tap traffic is toxic and non-functional. Result: ROI for builders on TON is roughly 100 times lower than on other top ecosystems. Costs (time, money, stress) are 10-15 times higher. The potential returns (TVL, users, fees) are 10 times lower. That’s the stark truth. In summary: building additional indexers and oracles may ease current pain, but it won’t attract new users. Until fundamental architectural problems (like unaddressed asynchrony), poor UX (speed, cost, bugs), and myths about Telegram’s "billion-user audience" are honestly recognized and addressed, TON is doomed to be a costly, slow, complex ecosystem with minimal ROI for serious developers. Talented teams and funds are moving where building is cheaper and earning easier. - Denis, developer from StormTrade