TON in the Money Transfer Market: The End of Western Union?

International money transfers remain a critical financial tool for millions of people worldwide. According to the World Bank, the global remittance market has reached ~$905 billion in 2024. These funds provide financial support to migrant families, drive economic growth in entire regions, and serve as a primary income source for many countries.

Since 2022, the market has been steadily growing:

2022: Total remittances amounted to $647 billion

2023: Reached $830 billion

2024: ~$905 billion

2025: Projected to grow by 3.6%, according to the World Bank

Despite significant advances in digital financial technologies, international money transfers remain expensive and slow. The average transaction fee for sending $200 is 6.7%, and processing times can take several days. These costs and delays create major barriers, especially for low-income individuals who rely on remittances as a lifeline.

TON is a blockchain network with the potential to radically transform the remittance industry. With ultra-low fees, instant transfers, and seamless integration with Telegram, TON is emerging as a competitor not only to traditional money transfer services but also to banking systems.

But can TON truly replace Western Union? And are users ready to embrace decentralized financial tools on a large scale? Let’s take a closer look.

Global Remittance Market: Figures and Trends

In recent years, the global remittance market has continued to show steady growth. For many countries, migrant remittances make up a significant part of their economies.

In 2024, the largest recipients of remittances were:

India – $111 billion

Mexico – $61 billion

China – $51 billion

Philippines – $38 billion

Pakistan – $30 billion

Despite the importance of these funds, the cost of sending money remains unreasonably high. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the average fee for sending $200 is 6.7%, which translates to $13.40 per transaction.

These expenses place a significant financial burden on users. For many migrants who send money monthly, the annual losses on fees can amount to hundreds of dollars. In addition, delays in processing and various restrictions further exacerbate the problem.

Why Are Traditional Money Transfers Expensive and Inconvenient?

The primary reason for high fees is the multi-layered system of intermediaries. When money is sent via Western Union or MoneyGram, it passes through banks, correspondent accounts, and currency clearing systems. Each entity involved takes a cut, increasing the final cost of the transfer.

Another major issue is speed. Despite Western Union’s marketing claims of instant transfers, in reality, funds can take several hours or even days to arrive. This is particularly relevant for bank transfers, where transactions must go through regulatory compliance checks.

Additionally, traditional money transfers are subject to strict limitations. Some countries impose limits on transfer amounts, while others enforce currency restrictions, making it difficult for recipients to access funds in their preferred currency. These challenges make the process cumbersome and costly.

Practical Comparison: TON vs. Western Union

Sending $200 from the U.S. to Mexico

Via Western Union

Visit a branch or register online.

Pay a fee of $12-15.

Wait from several hours to a full day, depending on the payout method.

Via TON

Open Telegram and select the transfer amount.

Pay a fee of less than 1 cent.

Funds instantly arrive in the recipient’s wallet.

The difference is clear: TON is not only significantly cheaper but also far more convenient to use.

TON vs. Western Union: Which Is Faster, Cheaper, and More Convenient?

Parameter	Western Union / MoneyGram	TON
Transfer Fee	6-7% ($12-15 for $200)	0.01% (less than 1 cent)
Transfer Speed	Several hours to several days	Instant
Convenience	Requires visiting a branch or a bank account	Integrated with Telegram
Restrictions	Limits, currency conversions, potential blocks	No restrictions

Historical Context: Why Is Western Union Losing Ground?

The Era of Monopoly: Western Union in the 2000s

In the early 2000s, Western Union was the undisputed leader in the global remittance market. The reason was simple—there were virtually no viable alternatives. If someone needed to send money abroad, their only option was to locate the nearest Western Union branch, fill out paperwork, deposit cash, and pay high fees. For millions of migrant workers and their families, this was the only available solution, especially for those without bank accounts.

At that time, transfer fees could reach 10-12%, particularly for smaller amounts. The process of receiving funds also presented additional challenges. In most cases, recipients had to visit a branch in person, provide identification, and wait for the transaction to be verified. In certain regions—especially in countries with unstable economies—access to these services was even more restricted, making the process even more inconvenient.

Despite Western Union's dominance, its system came with significant drawbacks. It relied heavily on physical branch locations, which made accessibility an issue. Paper-based bureaucracy slowed down transactions, and high fees significantly reduced the amount that recipients ultimately received. All these factors created the perfect conditions for the emergence of alternatives.

The Digitalization of Finance: PayPal and Revolut in the 2010s

The early 2010s marked the rise of digital payment platforms. Companies like PayPal, Revolut, and Wise (formerly TransferWise) introduced a new way to send money—via the internet. Now, users could transfer funds through a mobile app or web interface, and the money reached the recipient faster than traditional remittance services like Western Union.

However, these solutions came with their own limitations. While fees decreased, they still remained relatively high—averaging 3-5% for international transfers. Additionally, most digital platforms relied on traditional banking infrastructure, meaning that users still had to deal with bank fees and potential delays in processing transactions.

Another issue was limited availability. PayPal, for example, is still unavailable in some regions, and in countries with strict currency controls, transactions could be blocked or subject to additional fees. Revolut and Wise also support a limited number of currencies, and access to their services depends on local regulations.

Thus, while digital payment platforms began challenging Western Union, they failed to eliminate the industry's core issues—high fees, banking dependency, and limited accessibility.

Blockchain as the Next Stage in Financial Evolution

By the mid-2010s, blockchain technology entered the financial landscape. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum demonstrated that money could be transferred directly between users without banks or financial intermediaries.

However, early blockchain-based solutions faced significant technical obstacles. Transaction fees on Bitcoin and Ethereum were volatile, sometimes reaching $5–50 during periods of network congestion. Transaction speeds were inconsistent, with Bitcoin payments taking anywhere from 10 minutes to several hours to be confirmed—sometimes even longer.

Additionally, usability was a major barrier. Many users found crypto wallets, private keys, and blockchain transaction fees difficult to understand and navigate. The complexity of managing digital assets prevented mass adoption, making cryptocurrencies an impractical alternative to Western Union or PayPal for mainstream users.

TON as the Final Step Toward an Ideal System

Today, TON (The Open Network) represents the next evolutionary stage in global remittances, combining blockchain efficiency with digital convenience. It addresses the key issues faced by its predecessors, offering high transaction speeds, ultra-low fees, and intuitive user experience.

One of TON’s primary advantages is full decentralization. There is no central authority controlling transactions—funds move directly between users. This eliminates intermediaries, reducing fees while ensuring a secure and independent money transfer process.

With its high scalability, TON processes transactions within seconds, regardless of the sender’s or recipient’s location. The transaction fee is less than 1 cent, making it hundreds of times cheaper than Western Union, PayPal, and even many bank transfers.

Another major factor is ease of use. TON is integrated into Telegram, allowing users to send money as effortlessly as sending a message. This removes the need for third-party apps, lengthy registrations, or complex crypto wallet management.

As a result, TON is the first financial system to merge the best aspects of digital payments and blockchain technology into a single, user-friendly product. The transformation is comparable to how Netflix replaced DVDs, Spotify replaced music downloads, and Uber disrupted the taxi industry.

Western Union is unlikely to disappear overnight, but if it fails to adapt to new technologies, its market share will inevitably decline. Over the next 5-10 years, the future of international remittances is likely to belong to decentralized solutions like TON.

What Prevents TON from Fully Replacing Western Union?

Despite its clear advantages, TON faces several challenges that may slow its adoption in the international remittance market.

1. Regulatory Restrictions

Many governments remain cautious about cryptocurrencies, viewing them as a potential threat to financial stability and a tool for bypassing sanctions. Some countries have already imposed strict regulations:

China has completely banned cryptocurrency transactions.

India is considering new laws that could restrict crypto-based transfers.

International organizations like FATF (Financial Action Task Force) continue pushing for stricter anti-money laundering (AML) measures in the crypto space.

These regulatory concerns could lead to tighter KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements, making it harder for users to access cryptocurrency remittances.

However, the situation in the United States is evolving in a different direction. The Trump administration, which was previously skeptical about cryptocurrencies, has recently softened its stance. A new executive order was signed to establish a national Bitcoin reserve, signaling a potential shift toward integrating digital assets into the U.S. financial system. Additionally, Trump sees stablecoins as a tool for strengthening the dollar’s global dominance. This could work in TON’s favor if it gains support within U.S. regulatory frameworks.

2. Resistance from Banks and Payment Giants

Large financial institutions, including Western Union, SWIFT, and major banks, see TON as a direct threat to their multi-billion-dollar remittance business. These companies may attempt to slow the adoption of blockchain-based payments through three key strategies:

Blocking crypto-related bank accounts – Some banks already refuse to process transactions linked to digital assets.

Lobbying for strict regulations – New laws could make crypto remittances less accessible or impose high taxes on such transactions.

Developing competing solutions – SWIFT is actively testing blockchain platforms for instant international payments, while central banks are accelerating the development of CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) as a state-backed alternative to private cryptocurrencies.

3. Lack of User Awareness

Even though TON offers low fees and seamless usability, it remains a niche product. The biggest barriers to mass adoption include:

Lack of awareness – Many potential users simply don’t know about TON or its advantages.

Distrust in cryptocurrencies – Concerns over volatility, security risks, and the technical complexity of crypto wallets.

Reliance on traditional services – People are accustomed to using familiar payment methods, even if they are more expensive.

How Is TON Society Overcoming These Barriers?

TON Foundation is taking strategic steps to strengthen TON’s position in global remittances, focusing on regions with a high demand for fast and affordable money transfers. In December 2024, the foundation registered in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), enabling greater collaboration with financial institutions and regulators across the Middle East, North Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. This registration is part of a broader goal to reach 500 million users by 2028.

In Africa and Southeast Asia, TON is actively working on real-world integrations. Efforts include:

Expanding USDt-TON adoption across e-commerce platforms, travel services, exchanges, and payment providers.

Developing localized stablecoins for remittances in Central Africa (Cameroon, DR Congo, Republic of Congo), reducing the cost of cross-border transfers.

In 2025, TON plans to launch TON Teleport BTC, enabling Bitcoin interoperability and broadening its use cases. Additionally, the Society DAO initiative is being developed to foster community-driven governance within the TON ecosystem.

These initiatives represent a structured approach to establishing TON as a leading alternative to traditional remittance systems.

Conclusion

For decades, the remittance market has been controlled by large financial corporations, profiting from high fees and bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, blockchain technology is now changing the landscape.

TON offers a new model: low-cost transactions, instant payments, and an intuitive user experience. With its seamless integration into Telegram, TON is emerging as the first serious competitor to traditional remittance services, enabling transfers with minimal fees and no intermediaries.

Western Union and MoneyGram still hold a presence, but if they fail to adapt, their market share will inevitably decline. TON and other blockchain-based solutions are not just an alternative—they are poised to reshape the entire industry.

The real question is no longer if TON will replace Western Union—but when.