Our experimental directory of groups: https://simplex.chat/directory/
Unofficial registry of SimpleX servers: https://simplex-directory.asriyan.me
SimpleX bots API and libraries: https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat/tree/master/bots#useful-bots
Our plan for Community Vouchers: https://simplex.chat/vouchers/ - you can get an access pass to test them once launched before the end of today.
Happy New Year!
Thank you all for your incredible support of SimpleX network in 2025:
- to users for over 2,000,000 app downloads since launch.
- to enthusiasts for hundreds of community hosted servers.
- to group owners for thousands of groups.
- to businesses and projects using SimpleX Chat for customer and user support.
- to developers who created integrations and libraries for SimpleX network.
- to all who donated, and especially to Vitalik Buterin
for his game-changing donation of 128ETH.
2026 will be great for privacy and for SimpleX network!
is it yours?
🤦♂️ we don't plan the shitcoin, and never did that :)
It's a payment system for servers, no "coins" there, shit- or not.
Read https://simplex.chat/vouchers - it's been updated.
The plan is evolving - whitepaper is half-way done, the assessment of blockchain to build on is ongoing.
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qpq0r8xl2njyepcw2zwv3a6dyufj4e4ajx86hz6v4ehu4gnpupxxp7s85uvay is cool - they don't chase people to publish apps, they just do that. Thank you.
Is it? it's nice 😉 We can do that.
A big news for SimpleX Chat privacy and security:
Android apps released via GitHub and F-Droid are now 100% reproducible!
It means that you can easily verify that the app is secure, even if the download site was hacked.
From v6.5 our release process is:
1) build Android apps on two independent machines and confirm they are 100% identical;
2) cryptographically "sign" them;
3) add signature files to the release page so you can verify.
v6.5 beta.3 release: https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat/releases/tag/v6.5.0-beta.3
Server and Linux desktop builds were already reproducible, and Android APKs are now as secure.
Anyone can check it themselves - no coding needed, just follow our simple guide to verify the app is genuine or run the build yourself: https://simplex.chat/reproduce/
MLS uses ratcheting trees, it's different from Double Ratchet.
We honestly see it as a very rare view, proportionally. We are using planning to use one of smartchains for their intended purpose - distributed computing with reliable network-wide consensus. While Community Vouchers is the primary driver to use a smartchain, it'll also solve other problems:
- namespaces for users and groups, that protect from MITM attacks - if operators host names, as in federated designs, it's impossible to protect from them.
- public server registry with operator trust and reliability metrics, without any central authority as with Tor, for example.
And there won't be any minting activity by the operators - they will run full non-validating nodes on blockchain, and will act as decentralized RPC layer to blockchain (which is a weak link for most chains), letting clients to have multiple independent views onto chain for important queries (such as name resolution).
This is a really big innovation, and most users don't see it - they think we're going to use what exist.
Several reasons:
- payment either requires using private cryptocurrencies, that most people don't use, or exposes identity to operators - vouchers make purchase and payment unlinkable
- direct payments create risks of operator default - we want to build zero-trust model
- no effective way to codify revenue-sharing agreement - again, risk of defaults, not honouring agreement, etc.
All these problems are solved with smart contracts, and we don't see any simpler solution.
The question is similar to "why SimpleX network needs private message routing?" To protect users privacy and security from their contacts. As the number of operators grow, it's important to protect users from operators.
> aren't useful as an investment
Correct. We do NOT plan to use vouchers as a fundraising mechanism, and they are not tradable, and even more - they expire. Otherwise it may cross the line with strict application of Howey test (any tradable utility token, especially if used by a single party as development funding, is likely to be considered a security), and we don't want these risks.
We are exploring other funding models, such as grants, private investments and community crowdfunding - it will all be announced next year once the plan crystallizes.
> I'm not sure this is the best solution.
That is correct, but what we like about it is that it fits a very widely used regulatory framework - prepaid telecom cards. So we are doing a technical innovation without regulatory risks, which is rarely possible.
We are always open to better ideas, as we don't see any simpler design that achieves all the stated objectives:
- zero trust
- revenue sharing between operators and "network"
- unlinkability of purchase and usage
- no (or limited) transferrability
- expiration
- ability to purchase via in-app and credit part payments without being a cryptocurrency exchange (as they are prepaid telecom cards).
- probably some others
> it's difficult for a lot of users to understand what it solves and why.
Agreed, but we aim to make it completely hidden from the users and make it possible to use Community Vouchers (aka Community Credits) without touching / knowing about blockchain.
So there won't be requirement to use a crypto wallet at some point of product development - at least that is the objective we are working to:
- user can buy Community Voucher via in-app payment (yes, with some draconian commission, but it's worth it anyway as it would increase donations to communities - about 50% of app users even today never used cryptocurrencies, and for all potential users it's even bigger share)
- user can then donate it to their community of choice
All that within the app, without any technical way to link voucher purchase to community donation, thus preserving participation privacy.
Yes, we see it as an issue, as message delivery will be redundant, and it's a source of revenue to the operator - so operator "default" is not an issue for message delivery.
In case operator is also a mint, then operator "default" becomes an issue, so we are not considering the model when operators act as mints – it's a much higher level of trust than message delivery.
Exactly right. Our goal is to build a trustless system here, and eventually make network governance trustless as well.
If you looked at the preliminary design doc you can see that e-cash emerges at a point of Community Credit to operator credit conversion (so only micropayments or "change" depend on e-cash), but we might be able to remove this extra-layer based on the current design process evolution.
Community Vouchers are pure utility tokens:
- can only be used to pay for servers
- cannot be traded
- cannot be sold
- have fixed price
- expire in 6-12 month.
This is not something you can "trade" or "invest" in.
Our users asked many questions about Chat Control, as discussions were restarted in the EU this week.
SimpleX Chat is an open-source app where users control the code and the servers they use.
Therefore it is impossible to implement any client-side scanning, and it will not happen.
If the law is passed, two options are possible:
- we might need to stop offering preset servers to the EU users.
- we will not need to change anything - this is the most likely outcome.
Our operations are always consistent with our Privacy Policy (https://simplex.chat/privacy), and we would rather shut down than do anything that contradicts this agreement with our users.
What I mean is that Nostr relays can track which IP addresses read messages from which group IDs, creating an association with transport level identities of the users. While it's indeed mitigated to some extent by Tor/VPN, which was SimpleX design defence early on, the valid criticism of this argument that either Tor should be built into the clients (which wasn't and won't be the case with SimpleX, and is not the case with Nostr clients), as most users won't use Tor, and will assume that declared security properties hold without any additional measures.
What's worse is that even with Tor or VPN, Nostr relays can associate the list of group IDs with client sessions that read them, and observing sessions over time they would be able to statistically "recognise" users by the list of groups they get messages from. To mitigate this risk clients have to use different connections (and Tor circuits) when reading from different groups, and it's neither practical nor part of the spec. SimpleX clients offered this feature (transport isolation) as opt in.
So the response of SimpleX network design that addressed this criticism was using two independent relays in the message routing path, where the first one can see client session and transport address, but cannot see destination message queue address. And the second relay can see destination queue address, but has no information that could identify the transport session of the client. And the clients are programmed to choose relays operated by different parties to mitigate collusion risks.
What I was saying about our future chat relays design is that they are the usual messaging clients under the hood, just high volume, and won't have any network connection to the group members, even an indirect one, as they will be communicating via the existing messaging network.
An essay explaining why we don't plan to use MLS: https://www.poberezkin.com/posts/2025-08-12-mls-the-naked-king-of-end-to-end-encryption.html
A sidenote, is that Nostr's Whitenoise avoids its main problem.
TL;DR: MLS security model is "Trust me bro".
Did you know nostr:nprofile1qqsvnx99ww0sfall7gpv2jtz4ftc9v6wevgdd7g4hh7awkpfvwlezugpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0chkv5c now has a blockchain/shitcoin built in (called Flux)?
Did you know they've also started doing "content moderation"—blocking users, groups and 3rd party servers?
Yeah, so far it's only to stop CSAM distribution but we all know how that's a slippery slope. The good old "Think of the children" tactic. If there's a method to ban, block or censor, it will be used and ABUSED.
SimpleX Chat may have good #privacy but it's not decentralized, neither censorship-resistant. They also seem too concerned with complying with Google/Apple stores—“(...)there are requirements we have to comply with that exist outside of law, e.g. requirements of application stores.”
I also found out they are getting funded by VCS such a Village Global ( https://www.villageglobal.vc/ ), which have backers such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Anne Wojcicki and others.
This is not freedom tech. I'm out. DYOR.
To address some incorrect criticism:
> Did you know @SimpleX Chat now has a blockchain/shitcoin built in (called Flux)?
Nope, that's not true. There is no built-in coin. Flux the company offers their servers to the app users. Not their coin.
> Did you know they've also started doing "content moderation"—blocking users, groups and 3rd party servers?
Also not true. We cannot block users, as there are no users, and we do not block 3rd party servers. We do remove addresses of groups that distribute CSAM from our servers, without any impact on users privacy.
> Yeah, so far it's only to stop CSAM distribution but we all know how that's a slippery slope. The good old "Think of the children" tactic. If there's a method to ban, block or censor, it will be used and ABUSED.
Not true. Freedom of speech without SOME restriction cannot exist - unlimited freedom always leads to abuses of power and tyranny. Study some history. Our freedom ends where the freedom of our neighbours starts, so some limits absolutely must exist to defend our freedom.
> SimpleX Chat ... not decentralized
Not true as well - there are 100s if not 1000s of community run servers. If you don't want to use ours or Flux's, use your own or anybody else's - it's all in a single network.
> not censorship-resistant.
This is correct, and this will change, as was explained in livestream.
Censorship-resistance and privacy are technically contradictory requirements, so they have to be balanced.
> I also found out they are getting funded by VCS such a Village Global
We were never hiding it, and who are it's LPs is irrelevant - they have no influence or control on SimpleX Chat.
Read this post: https://simplex.chat/blog/20240814-simplex-chat-vision-funding-v6-private-routing-new-user-experience.html