Elliptic Study: Telegram Dark Markets Expand After Huione Shutdown

Elliptic’s latest report shows that Telegram’s removal of Huione Guarantee (also known as “Haowang Guarantee”) left a $27 billion void that over 30 rival dark markets rushed to fill. Demand and anonymity on Telegram sustain the illicit trade wave despite bans.

Huione Guarantee Shutdown and Its Aftermath

On May 13, 2025, Telegram banned Huione Guarantee channels after Elliptic exposed over $27 billion in illicit transactions tied to scams and money laundering. Huione facilitated pig-butchering schemes and other fraud via thousands of Telegram channels. Telegram acted on Elliptic’s findings to delete vendor channels and ban users linked to Huione’s operations. Prior coverage notes that Huione Group funneled funds from hacking groups and held political ties, raising broader concerns.

TRM Labs observed that Huione re-emerged via “VIP” channels and related services despite the ban, indicating resilience of its network. The U.S. Treasury designated Huione Group for sanctions, yet Telegram removals only halted public-facing channels temporarily. Elliptic noted that Huione’s USDT inflows fell to near zero after the ban, but illicit actors swiftly migrated to alternatives.

The closure of Huione Guarantee created openings for competitors to fill the gap,

Elliptic commented.

Telegram’s action marked a major disruption, but history shows that illicit marketplaces adapt and re-emerge under new names or restructured operations. Analysts stress that deleting channels without broader coordination lets illicit services persist on Telegram and elsewhere.

User Adaptation and Migration Patterns in Telegram Dark Markets

Telegram takedowns often spur swift market migration and adaptation. Elliptic shows that after Huione’s ban, users flocked to Tudou Guarantee and over 30 similar platforms within days. Historical cases mirror this: Alphabay’s closure drove many traders to Hansa before law enforcement revealed the takeover. Research indicates most migrating users settle on a coexisting alternative rather than exit the ecosystem.

Closures seed distrust yet fail to end activity permanently. Platforms rebrand under new names or shift to private invite-only channels to hide from moderation. Lawfare notes Telegram’s partial cooperation, but vendors quickly post fresh contact points and domains. Merchant migration maintains high volume despite enforcement moves.

Users and many former Huione vendors quickly moved to Tudou and similar platforms, offering stolen data, money laundering, and scam tools. Analysts warn that as long as Telegram allows pseudonymous channels, operators can rebuild under new names. Reputation and customer bases transfer across platforms.

Research on darknet resilience shows takedowns yield short-lived drops in overall activity. Analysts argue that only coordinated, cross-platform actions curb migration effectively. Continuous monitoring and rapid response can disrupt networks but must pair with user education to reduce demand.

Why it matters: recognizing migration dynamics helps defenders anticipate new hubs and deploy timely countermeasures. As operators adapt, analytics must evolve to track hidden channels.
What’s next: expect more transient markets, encrypted invite systems, and deeper reliance on peer networks, forcing authorities and platforms to combine tech, policy, and outreach to stem illicit flows.

Social Media Trends and Risks in Telegram Dark Markets

Operators harness Telegram’s public channels, groups, and bots to advertise illicit services, exploiting anonymity and minimal oversight to reach wide audiences quickly. They use influencer-style endorsements and community-driven hype to build apparent credibility, even when promoting scams or stolen data. Scammers leverage forwarding features and viral messaging to onboard users at scale, often hiding in plain sight within large groups. Phishing operations shift from hidden dark web forums to Telegram’s open channels, making credential theft and fraud tools easily accessible.

Risk factors multiply as users encounter pump-and-dump schemes, fake investment tips, and data-leak markets via social feeds and direct messages. Low liquidity and flawed smart contracts in related services expose participants to slippage and hacks when moving funds across protocols. Encrypted messaging hinders proactive moderation, while operators rebrand quickly under new names or private invite systems to evade takedowns.

Analytics tools can flag unusual flows and suspicious channel activity, but many end users lack awareness or fail to verify contracts and audit reports before engaging. Regulatory scrutiny intensifies as authorities note the persistent migration of illicit markets on Telegram, yet fragmented hubs complicate enforcement without cross-platform cooperation and user outreach. Continuous vigilance, combined with clear guidance on avoiding scams and verifying sources, offers the best defense against the evolving threat of Telegram dark markets.