Where crypto exchanges fall short in UX compared to Telegram

Just a few years ago, cryptocurrency was a tool for the "tech elite"—and complex user journeys were considered normal for insiders. Times have changed. Sanctions and a lowering entry barrier are bringing a new audience into the crypto space—people unfamiliar with DeFi or crypto trading. These users just want to “receive money and spend it.” Expectations are shifting, and we set out to see who’s keeping up.

We compared two ways of cashing out TON into fiat euros to a Wise card: via the Bybit exchange and directly through Telegram. The results were surprising. Exchanges offer broader tools and options, but they fall short when it comes to real-world user needs like simplicity and convenience. The Telegram route was three times shorter, cheaper, and more intuitive than using Bybit.

Case context

The user lives in Europe and works remotely, receiving income from Russia. To cover everyday expenses, they use a Wise card—a multi-currency debit card with a euro account. Due to restrictions on international transfers, traditional bank transfers from Russia to Europe are often inconvenient or unprofitable. The user opts to use cryptocurrency as a bridge to withdraw funds.

What we did

We mapped out both end-to-end scenarios for a user receiving TON and wanting to cash it out to a Wise card in euros. The first path was through the Bybit crypto exchange; the second was via Telegram's P2P functionality. Both journeys were completed using a smartphone.

We built a detailed customer journey map (CJM), highlighting UX issues and potential improvements. This analytical report summarizes our findings, observations, and recommendations.

Insight #1. Telegram provides information quickly, but users must piece it together manually

The first step is receiving TON in Telegram and trying to determine its fiat value. Notifications are sent both in the chat with the sender and in the wallet bot. Each links to the wallet, displaying sender info, profile photo, amount, and transaction status. While the experience feels smooth, there are caveats.

Telegram does not show the fiat value of received crypto in transaction history, nor the exchange rate at the time of the transfer. To retrieve the rate, users must scroll through chats or a cluttered wallet bot filled with ads and unrelated notifications. This is time-consuming and frustrating, especially for users managing multiple transactions.

Recommendations:

• Standardize notifications of crypto value in bots and chats.
• Add fiat value and exchange rate at the time of transaction to the wallet’s transaction history.

Insight #2. The wallet interface isn’t adapted for beginners or anxious users

Checking the wallet balance presents friction points for the average user:

• Users cannot view balances in both euros and rubles at the same time. Currency display is changed only in the settings—and there's no indication that this is even possible.
• The list of currencies isn’t sorted. For instance, USDT may be shown first despite having zero balance, while TON appears second even if it holds all the funds. A user might think their wallet is empty if their familiar currency is buried in the list.

Such issues breed uncertainty. This either drives users to support teams (increasing business costs) or forces them to figure things out on their own (reducing satisfaction).

Minimalism is good, but not at the expense of clarity—especially when money is involved.

Recommendations:

• Allow users to view balances in multiple currencies, either on the same screen or via a carousel with pagination.
• Sort currencies by balance or give users control over the display order.

Insight #3. Lack of support turns routine UX steps into potential risk points

The user decides to send TON from Telegram to their Bybit wallet. On the wallet’s main screen, they tap “Send,” choose “External wallet,” and select the asset. If it’s their first time, guidance is essential—but Telegram's wallet doesn’t offer it.

Users must search for help on their own. Without clear FAQs or in-app prompts, errors are more likely—such as sending to incorrect addresses or misunderstanding fees. Mistakes like these can lead to financial loss and damage user trust.

Recommendations:

• Add a “Help” button or a “?” icon that links to FAQs.
• Provide smart tips in the interface, especially for first-time actions.

Insight #4. Complex scenarios demand ultra-clear presentation

Once the user switches to Bybit, they face a new set of challenges. The app offers a wide range of features and includes helpful documentation and a chatbot that shares relevant links. But visual and language issues complicate the experience.

Partial localization of the app confuses users who expect full Russian-language support. When a user chooses a language, they expect consistency. Any mismatch leads to a perception of poor quality. Small, unreadable screenshots in help materials also add friction.

To deposit TON, users navigate to “Deposit” and select TON via an external wallet.

On the wallet address screen, they see the minimum transfer amount and a note about staying within a single network. The full wallet address is provided and can be copied—but scanning the QR code is not feasible when using the same smartphone.

Recommendations:

• Ensure the interface renders properly on all devices.
• Fully localize the app based on the selected language.
• Enlarge help screenshots or make them clickable and zoomable.

Insight #5. Hidden fees and unclear timelines are the worst companions to financial transactions

After completing the quest of locating the wallet address, the user can finally return to the Telegram wallet and send cryptocurrency to the exchange.

Telegram is designed to prevent errors and ensure transaction safety. The app provides clear communication about critical events during the transaction process. However, it lacks crucial details regarding transfer fees and processing times. This lack of transparency before the amount is entered leads to avoidable errors: users often try to send their entire balance without accounting for the fee—resulting in transaction failure. This becomes a key frustration point and a reason for user churn.

• If the transfer amount (after deducting the fee) is insufficient, the user must adjust the sum, requiring additional steps.
• The absence of information about transaction processing time leaves users uncertain. They repeatedly check their balance, wasting time.
• Some users, misinterpreting the delay, may believe the transaction failed and resend funds unnecessarily.

Recommendations:

• Display the transfer fee in the send form before the user enters the amount.
• On the success screen, clearly indicate the expected transaction processing time.

In total, sending TON from Telegram to the exchange takes 9 taps. Additionally, retrieving the Bybit wallet address requires 6 taps.

Insight #6. Support for a coin in P2P is more important than listing a new token

The user's core goal is to sell cryptocurrency and cash out. Instead of a clear, intuitive process, the Bybit user embarks on a convoluted journey—calculating exchange rates, figuring out fees, and navigating unfamiliar paths. For users who are new to P2P trading, this creates confusion and erodes trust.

The user’s first instinct is to sell TON for euros through P2P trading—meaning a direct transaction with another individual who sends fiat to the seller’s card. But Bybit presents an immediate obstacle: TON is not available for P2P trading, though other assets like USDT are. This forces users to convert TON into another asset first—an extra, unnecessary step. It’s a critical UX flaw that demands additional time and effort. In the worst case, users may abandon the platform entirely.

An alternative to P2P is one-click purchases or spot trading, where transactions are executed automatically. Unlike these, P2P trading requires manual execution but offers more flexibility in choosing exchange rates. For this reason, we followed the P2P route.

To convert TON to USDT, the user completes 2 steps to reach the conversion form. They select the currency pair, enter the TON amount, and confirm the operation.

The full TON-to-USDT conversion takes 6 taps. Notably, the fee is only shown on the success screen, which may force users to recalculate the amount if they haven’t left a sufficient buffer. If the user is going through the process for the first time, they may not even realize that a fee will be applied—leading them to search FAQs or contact support, which increases the burden on the business.

Recommendations:

• Expand the list of cryptocurrencies available for P2P sales.
• Use field labels in the conversion form that reflect the transaction more clearly, e.g., “Amount to convert / Amount to receive,” or “Debited amount / Credited amount.”
• Display the conversion fee in the form before the amount is entered.

Insight #7. More filters and branching paths don’t equal convenience

The final stage of this journey is selling USDT via P2P trading—which takes at least 13 steps, assuming the payment method is already set up. While Bybit’s P2P mechanism is well-structured, it runs into limitations due to fiat-centric logic and the absence of human-centered guidance. For example, there is no explanation on how to communicate with the buyer in the chat.

Within the P2P trading section, users can add bank cards to receive fiat payments from crypto sales. The payment method is selected from a list, and the name is automatically pulled from the user’s registration data. Once the card is added, it will be pre-filled during trades if the user selects Wise as the payment method.

After adding the card, the user proceeds to sell cryptocurrency in the P2P section.

A timer starts, indicating the time within which the buyer must send fiat to the seller’s account. A status indicator shows the current stage of the operation. In some cases, the buyer may request card details in the chat. Once the buyer confirms the transfer, the transaction status updates and a new timer appears; the seller can then confirm the crypto transfer.

Despite the logic behind the process, the complexity of filters, the fiat-dominant interface, and the lack of clear communication guidelines turn the transaction into a “mini-exchange” rather than a user-friendly experience for the general public.

Recommendations:

• In the P2P section, allow users to set filters based on the amount of cryptocurrency they wish to sell. This would eliminate the need for manual fiat conversions and speed up the search for suitable offers.
• Add a communication guidelines banner or section within the chat interface. Without clear instructions, users may send messages deemed inappropriate by the other party, overload the chat with unnecessary messages, propose off-platform deals, or request sensitive personal data—without realizing this could pose security risks.

Insight #8. Telegram P2P is “instant and native,” but lacks flexibility and fine control

Telegram’s P2P crypto sales process is more straightforward. Its main advantages are speed and convenience—everything happens within a single app, and the wallet supports TON natively. Card verification and double confirmation steps help prevent mistakes.

Its weaknesses lie in limited discovery features for optimal trading conditions. If many listings exist, users must spend time manually searching for the most suitable offer.

Overall, the P2P selling process is similar across both platforms and shares common strengths.

Like in Bybit, users review the entered data and create an order. Telegram also provides a status system and countdown timers for each transaction step—waiting for buyer confirmation, payment receipt, and final confirmation.

Final confirmation involves two steps: a confirmation window and a short verification code, reducing the chance of user error or accidental action.

Recommendations:

• Expand sorting options for offers, enabling users to sort by price, number of completed trades, and success rate.
• In the P2P section, add filters for the amount of cryptocurrency to be sold.
• Add communication guidelines in the chat interface to improve clarity and security.

Conclusions

The fastest way to cash out TON from a Telegram wallet to a Wise card in euros is by selling the cryptocurrency via P2P directly within Telegram.

Withdrawing through Bybit is less convenient for several reasons. First, transferring TON from Telegram to Bybit involves around 15 additional steps, switching between two apps, and paying a transfer fee. Second, TON cannot be sold directly via P2P on Bybit—it must first be converted to another cryptocurrency (such as USDT), adding 6 more steps and requiring the user to make additional decisions. Third, the list of available P2P offers may be limited for users who are new or have low trading activity.

That said, Bybit does offer advantages: a wider range of listings and additional selling options beyond P2P.

The P2P trading processes in Telegram and Bybit are structurally similar: users select an offer, confirm the deal, wait for the fiat payment, and then release the cryptocurrency. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. Bybit offers more filters and customization, but its interface can overwhelm inexperienced users. Telegram, on the other hand, provides a more minimalistic and intuitive flow—especially appealing to users who prioritize simplicity and speed.

In the end, the user journey is still full of friction. Even a seemingly simple task like cashing out TON to euros can involve over 30 actions, multiple app switches, and dozens of user-driven decisions.

We conducted this research to show crypto companies that UX is not just a decorative layer. Every extra minute, unclear element, or faulty button is a potential point of churn—users will leave for a platform that feels easier and more intuitive.

Interested in improving your product experience? Contact us on WhatsApp or via the form below — let’s talk.