When Elon Musk announced the latest updates to XChat — encryption, disappearing messages, file sharing and even calls without a phone number — the internet predictably lit up. Promising “Bitcoin-style” encryption and a shiny new Rust-built architecture, the XChat reveal was bold, big and buzzing. But while tech commentators scrambled to decode the implications, ICPanda DAO had already fired off a confident reply that turned more than a few heads.
Their response? They’ve been there, done that.
ICPanda DAO pointed to their own product, dMsg.net, a fully on-chain encrypted messaging app already alive and kicking on the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP). And they weren’t shy about it either. “Encrypted messaging is more than optional privacy. It’s essential to protect your safety & security,” they posted. Straightforward, purposeful and a little pointed.
At the heart of this duel of declarations lies the messaging architecture itself — both XChat and dMsg.net claim to be built in Rust, a language increasingly loved by developers for its security, speed and safety. Rust is no longer a fringe favourite; it’s carving out its spot in high-performance and secure app development. But the flavour of encryption each one uses gives them different digital signatures. While XChat leans into “Bitcoin-style” encryption — more traditional, battle-tested cryptographic models — dMsg.net goes for “ICP-style”, which is tailored to the decentralised internet infrastructure that the Internet Computer provides.
This is more than just a tech face-off. It touches on the deeper divide between Web2 and Web3 mindsets. Elon Musk’s moves are often painted as progressive — but they tend to be Web2.5 at best, adding crypto or decentralised elements to otherwise centralised platforms. On the other hand, dMsg.net didn’t bolt-on encryption to a central app — it’s fully on-chain, embedded in the bones of the software. Built by ICPanda DAO, it was never just about a messaging tool. It reflects a vision where communication lives in a decentralised environment, governed by those who use it, free from platform control.
That’s where the conversation gets interesting. Musk’s new XChat can do calls without a phone number. That’s undeniably cool — and might one day spell the end for traditional carriers. But it still lives inside the walls of a corporate platform. Users may get shiny tools, but the rules, governance, and data ultimately sit within X’s framework. It’s private — until a policy changes, or a backdoor appears, or acquisition dynamics shift.
ICPanda’s approach doesn’t lean on corporate control. It’s DAO-backed, shaped by community consensus, and operating on a decentralised network that doesn’t require trust in a single entity. The end-to-end encryption isn’t a layer; it’s foundational. Group chats, file sharing, and encrypted comms all live permanently on-chain — which means no centralised storage, no third-party servers, no one-stop-shop for surveillance or leaks.
There’s another layer to this too. Musk’s post talked about the “ability to send any kind of file.” That’s a feature users crave — but it comes with risk. How that data is stored, who has access, and where it lives will matter enormously. Centralised platforms have stumbled here before. When private files were accessed by accident, or moderation teams had back-end visibility into “encrypted” chats, users learned that just saying “end-to-end” doesn’t always make it so.
With dMsg.net, files are part of the chain itself. Shared files aren’t floating on a company’s cloud server — they’re uploaded, encrypted, and distributed across a decentralised architecture. That’s a different beast. No one at ICPanda DAO can “see” what you’re sharing — because structurally, they can’t. The platform was designed that way from the start, not retrofitted for headlines.
Of course, this isn’t a fair match when it comes to visibility. Musk’s audience dwarfs ICPanda’s — X has billions of impressions, while DAO-driven projects often speak in more niche circles. But that doesn’t make their tech inferior. In fact, history suggests that many major innovations in privacy-first tech don’t start with giants. Signal, Proton, even early versions of Telegram — these didn’t begin as corporate ventures. They emerged from passion, urgency, and communities with something to protect.
ICPanda DAO’s work with dMsg.net fits squarely in that tradition. They’re not building for virality; they’re building because communication is infrastructure. If privacy fails, people fail. If surveillance becomes normal, resistance becomes impossible. For them, messaging isn’t a lifestyle add-on — it’s a lifeline.
Still, Musk has a talent for shifting norms. Once he adopts a feature, it begins to move from fringe to mainstream. The real question now is whether users will settle for platforms that offer “privacy” under corporate terms, or whether the moment will spark curiosity toward tools like dMsg.net — where architecture, philosophy, and community are aligned.
ICPanda’s decision to respond publicly to Musk’s post wasn’t just cheeky. It was strategic. They know their work stands up — technically, philosophically, and structurally. So why not ride the XChat wave to say: hey, we’re doing this already, and we’re doing it differently?
And that difference is important. Messaging is no longer just messaging. It’s politics. It’s power. It’s organising. When messages disappear, who decides when? When files are shared, who controls the limits? When calls are made, who gets metadata? These aren’t minor decisions. They shape how protest, intimacy, and business happen.
XChat might become sleek and slick, but it won’t escape its foundations. And maybe that’s okay for some users. But for those looking to speak, share and act without layers of unknown oversight, options like dMsg.net will matter. They’ll become the quiet tools that let people breathe, without worrying who’s watching.
It’s unlikely Musk will directly acknowledge ICPanda’s reply — but that’s not really the point. The point is that someone did. A DAO did. A decentralised, community-led body saw a mega announcement and said, “yes, we know — we already did it, but better.”
This kind of pushback is rare in tech discourse. Usually, big announcements go unchallenged, or critiques come from journalists, not builders. But here, it was the builders who responded. They showed up with working code, a live platform, and a record of doing the thing Musk was promoting.
So where does this leave us?
On one side, there’s the sprawling reach of a tech billionaire promising privacy features on a once-failing social network now turned multi-use platform. On the other, a decentralised crew already offering those features, running without hierarchy, and inviting users to own their tools, not just use them.
If anything, the moment reminds us to look past the dazzle. Big names and new rollouts don’t always mean innovation. Sometimes, the freshest work is already out there — humming quietly, built by people who aren’t trying to sell you anything except the right to speak freely.
