Dategram and dating apps in Telegram: a Tinder alternative

Telegram is gradually becoming a platform not only for messaging, payments, and crypto, but also for dating. In 2025-2026 a whole category of dating mini-apps appeared, using Telegram as a base: social graph, native payments, no install. Dategram is one of the visible representatives of the category, alongside local Cupy analogs, MeetMe-like clones, and many ad hoc interest-based dating chats.

This article breaks down what Dategram and similar apps do better than classic Tinder/Bumble, where they lose, how they monetize, and which risks the user should account for.

Context: the dating industry in 2026

The classic dating market (Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Badoo) is a mature but tired segment. Retention is dropping at the key apps, user acquisition cost (CAC) is rising, users are fatigued by Tinder Gold/Plus subscriptions, endless swiping, and matching frustration.

In parallel, Telegram has nearly a billion MAU, native infrastructure for messaging and payments, and users who already spend several hours a day inside the messenger. The setup is ideal for a new dating format that does not require a separate app.

i

Not the first attempt. Facebook Dating, Instagram dating features in the early 2020s — attempts to add dating to an existing social network. They largely did not take off: a social network as a dating context works poorly because the “friends” graph differs from the “dating prospects” graph. Telegram understands that and builds dating not on “open your friend circle” but on “find new people with similar interests.”

What Dategram is

Dategram is a TWA in Telegram implementing a classic dating flow:

1. Sign-up via Telegram account. No separate registration, photos and some data are pulled from the profile.
2. Profile. The user adds extra photos, description, interests, gender and age filters.
3. Feed / swipes. Shows profiles of other users with like/skip options.
4. Match. On mutual like, a chat opens inside the app or a direct Telegram chat (depending on app settings).
5. Conversation. From there — through standard Telegram tools: chats, voice, video.

Paid features: profile boost (higher in queue), super-like, see who liked before reciprocating, hide from feed, unlimited daily swipes.

What Telegram does better than Tinder

Strengths of dating apps in Telegram versus classic apps:

1. No install. One click in chat and the user is inside the app. Tinder requires a 200 MB download, registration, phone verification.
2. Real social graph. The app can show “this person shares chats with you,” “mutual friends.” That lowers fake-profile risk and helps matching.
3. Native payments. Stars are bought for rubles, tenge, euros — no card, no foreign processors. Stars microtransactions of $0.5-2 are routine; on the card model they are uneconomic due to fixed fees.
4. TON payments for major subscriptions. A monthly premium via TON is cheaper for the user (no 30% Apple/Google commission) and better-margin for the developer.
5. Communication right there. Match → chat → video call → meet — all in one app. On Tinder it goes match → chat → “move to Instagram/Telegram” (one of the main drop-off points).
6. Low barrier to return. Telegram is already open. Tinder requires a separate launch users often delay.

What is worse than in classic apps

Weaknesses:

1. Weaker verification. Tinder/Bumble require selfie verification, voice confirmation, sometimes social-network linking. Telegram apps rely on Telegram account verification (phone), but photos can be anything. Fake-profile risk is higher.
2. Fewer filters. Tinder Gold offers filtering by height, education, kids, political views. Telegram dating apps usually lack such filters or keep them primitive.
3. Smaller pool in small cities. Tinder/Bumble have millions of users in any country. Telegram dating apps run in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and in provincial regions active audience can be too small.
4. No premium matching algorithms. Tinder Elo, Hinge “most compatible” — the result of years of data-science work. New dating apps in Telegram have none of that; the feed is closer to chronological or random.
5. Weaker age control. Telegram does not require age verification, and although dating apps declare “18+”, practical control is limited.
6. Stigma. “I met someone via a Telegram mini-app” is still unusual. The social norm has not formed yet, and part of the audience feels dating through a messenger is unserious.

!

Where to be especially careful: dating in Telegram has historically been fertile ground for romance scams. The profile of a beautiful woman/man, active messaging, after 2-3 weeks “help me invest in crypto / I have a problem, send money.” This works on any platform, in Telegram especially so — users are often less experienced in digital dating etiquette than the Tinder audience.

Dating-app monetization

Standard revenue lineup:

Stars are convenient for microtransactions (boost, super-like). TON works for premium subscriptions and larger purchases where the commission difference matters.

Paying conversion in dating is traditionally high (10-25% MAU) because the tool solves a real need. The Telegram format currently shows slightly lower conversion (5-15%) due to a younger audience and less mature UX, but the growth ceiling is high.

Adjacent projects

Dategram is not alone. The dating mini-app category in Telegram includes:

1. Cupy — focused on fast introductions, minimum profile fields.
2. Region-specific dating apps — for individual cities or countries with localized UI.
3. Interest-based dating chats — not TWAs but Telegram chats with applications (“St Petersburg, 25-35, IT”). Less technological but often more effective in small cities.
4. Niche dating — separate apps for specific audiences (by religion, profession, interests).
5. Anonymous dating bots — where users chat without revealing the profile, with staged reveals.

The total Telegram dating audience is hard to estimate — no public stats. Roughly: millions of MAU across all apps, smaller than Tinder in a single country, on the order of Hinge or Badoo in an average country.

User safety

Risks and defenses:

1. Fake profiles. Defense: check Telegram account verification (account age, activity in chats), do not respond to suspiciously fast/pushy contacts, request a video call before serious interaction.
2. Romance scams. Defense: never send money or crypto to a person met in a dating app, especially “urgently” or as an “investment.” That is always a scam.
3. Link phishing. Defense: do not open TWA links from unknown matches before the first meeting; apply standard link-verification discipline.
4. Stalking. Defense: limit what is shown in the Telegram profile (phone number, last seen). Use Telegram privacy settings.
5. Drainer apps disguised as dating. Defense: verify it is a known dating app, not a clone. If an app asks to connect a TON wallet, real dating does not require it.

2026-2027 trends

Where the category is heading:

1. Verification via TON Connect and SBT. Soulbound tokens may become a tool to confirm “a real human” without sharing documents. NFT verification badges from one app become visible in another.
2. AI conversation assistants. Help with the first message, dialogue suggestions — a demanded feature, especially in the male audience. Ethical question: where the line between “help” and “talking to a bot, not a person” sits.
3. Voice-first dating. Podcast-style self-presentation instead of a text profile. Telegram infrastructure (voice messages, video circles) makes this natural.
4. Privacy-focused formats. Anonymous dating with staged reveal, encrypted chats, anti-stalking protection. Telegram already leads on privacy versus competitors.
5. Place-based integration. Visited places, bars, events data from other mini-apps form a richer matching profile.

✓

The main development vector is the transformation of Telegram dating apps from “simplified Tinder” into a standalone format with unique capabilities: social-graph and SBT verification, native payments for micro-features, seamless conversation after a match. If that evolution happens, the category becomes a real alternative to classic dating apps rather than just their clones.

When a Telegram dating app makes sense

Scenarios where the format works best:

1. Large cities with a large Telegram audience. Moscow, St Petersburg, Minsk, Almaty — high density of active Telegram users.
2. Young (18-30) tech-savvy audience. Those who already live in Telegram.
3. Niche communities. Dating within IT, crypto, gaming — where the social graph is partially in Telegram already.
4. Parallel use. As a supplement to Tinder/Bumble, an additional channel.

Scenarios where classic apps remain stronger:

1. Serious relationship search with specific requirements. Hinge offers a deeper profile.
2. Small cities. Audience too small for a Telegram dating app to work.
3. Older audience (40+). Less active in Telegram, more comfortable with classic dating sites.

Conclusion

The dating category in Telegram is young but quickly evolving. Dategram and similar apps show that social graph plus native payments plus no-install is a serious advantage, especially for the young tech-savvy audience. But classic dating apps retain advantages in verification, filters, audience scale, and matchmaking algorithms.

In 2026 a Telegram dating app is not a Tinder replacement — it is an additional channel and format. In two or three years, if development goes along the described vector (SBT verification, AI assistants, voice-first), the category may become a standalone alternative. For now — a niche but interesting segment of the TWA ecosystem.

→