The Fragment platform began to request KYC for the purchase of nicknames in Telegram, anonymous numbers and "stars"

KYC is a "Know Your Customer" check, which is carried out by both banks and centralized crypto exchanges.

• Now, for transactions, you need to verify your account, users have noticed in X. Fragment requires confirmation of your phone number and email, "personal data", including an ID, and a face scan.
• The verification is carried out by the partner service Sumsub. Among its clients are fintech and crypto platforms, in particular the Telegram wallet.
• Users are perplexed why a platform for buying anonymous numbers asks to undergo identity verification, and believe that this contradicts the principles of decentralization.
• Some have linked the changes to Ton’s supposed “entry into the US market” amid Gary Gensler’s impending departure as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The blockchain project has had trouble with the regulator since Pavel Durov’s tenure.

Recent changes to Fragment.com, a blockchain-based platform for buying phone numbers, have sparked a furious backlash among its users. Once a bastion of privacy, the platform’s new policy requires detailed verification of users, effectively stripping many of their prized anonymity. Buyers who viewed the numbers as a dual-use tool for privacy and investment are feeling blindsided as the service’s initial appeal diminishes.

Telegram anonymity

The change has raised concerns among Telegram users, many of whom initially relied on the service to bolster their digital privacy. Some speculate that regulatory pressure or outside influence may be at play, especially given the legal troubles Telegram founder Pavel Durov has faced. Currently under house arrest in France, Durov has faced controversy over his connection to Telegram’s privacy-related developments. However, the broader implications of his situation remain unclear.

Users Feel Betrayed

Fragment.com initially positioned its product as a secure solution for anonymous communication. This attracted privacy-conscious investors and individuals working in regions with strict surveillance. The abrupt policy change not only contradicts this principle, but also leaves users questioning the future direction of the platform.

One user commented: “I invested in a crypto number thinking it was a shield from intrusion. Now it feels like I’ve given my data directly to those I was trying to avoid.”

For many, this loss of trust in the platform resonates with a deeper fear: that even blockchain-based innovations are not immune to regulatory crackdowns.

The Durov Connection

While Telegram and Fragment.com are technically separate entities, the overlap in their user bases and principles has led to widespread speculation about the timing of these changes. Durov’s legal troubles — under house arrest in France on undisclosed charges — add fuel to the fire. Critics argue that Telegram’s recent moves, such as requiring phone numbers for certain features and introducing less privacy-focused measures, may reflect pressure from global authorities.

While there is no direct evidence linking Durov’s arrest to Fragment.com’s policy changes, the sequence of events raises questions about the broader digital privacy landscape. Supporters caution against ignoring the possibility of outside interference in the way these platforms operate.

The Future of Privacy in Blockchain Services

Fragment.com highlights a broader trend: increased regulation of blockchain services that once promised decentralized freedom. Governments around the world are tightening their grip on cryptocurrency ecosystems, citing concerns about money laundering, security threats, and tax evasion.

As platforms like Fragment.com adapt to comply with regulations, users are forced to re-evaluate the balance between privacy and functionality. For privacy advocates, this highlights the importance of decentralized alternatives that prioritize anonymity without compromise.

Fragment.com: Crypto Numbers Are No Longer Anonymous

The changes at Fragment.com serve as a cautionary tale against relying too much on centralized platforms, even those built on blockchain technology. Users should remain vigilant in seeking out truly decentralized options that can withstand regulatory pressure. Meanwhile, the tech community is watching Durov’s legal battle with interest, understanding its potential implications for the future of Telegram and digital privacy in general.

In a digital age increasingly hostile to anonymity, the events around Fragment.com remind us of the fragility of privacy and the ongoing fight to protect it.

The changes at Fragment.com are a reminder of how fragile privacy is in today’s digital world. The question is whether users will be able to seize these new opportunities to create a free digital society, or will they continue to ignore the benefits of technologies that offer not only anonymity, but also the tools to build the future.