Matrix Conference 2025 Highlights

Matrix vs Signal: Encryption, Trust, and Metadata

• Several comments challenge the claim that Matrix and Signal use “exactly the same encryption tech.”
  • One side: Signal is described as significantly more advanced cryptographically (modern primitives, post-quantum ratchets, zero-knowledge proofs). Matrix’s Olm/Megolm is different, shipped side-channel-vulnerable code for years, and still has optional/plaintext modes and features like reactions historically outside the encrypted envelope.
  • Other side: Pro‑Matrix arguments focus less on cryptographic primitives and more on architecture: self‑hosting homeservers, open spec, multiple independently developed clients, and less dependence on a single vendor’s binary and infrastructure.
• Disagreement over metadata:
  • Critics say federation and optional E2EE inherently leak more metadata than Signal’s strongly metadata‑minimizing, centralized protocol.
  • Defenders argue centralization creates a single rich metadata target, whereas decentralization spreads risk and lets users keep metadata on their own infrastructure.

Different Threat Models: Small Groups vs “Discord Replacement”

• Several commenters stress that comparing Signal and Matrix directly is misleading:
  • Signal: optimized for small, highly private conversations, closest substitute for SMS.
  • Matrix: closer to a secure, federated Discord/Slack; group chats, spaces, threads, bridges, and institutional deployments are primary goals.
• Consensus that if the sole criterion is security/privacy, Signal currently wins; Matrix is about different tradeoffs and openness.

Privacy vs Crime and Law Enforcement

• A thread explores whether ubiquitous secure chat “helps criminals”:
  • Acknowledgment that strong privacy tools also benefit criminal organizations, but this is framed as true of many technologies (cars, electricity).
  • Arguments that effective policing depends more on resources and traditional investigative work than on mass interception.
  • Skepticism that restricting encryption for the public would meaningfully hinder serious criminals, who can still use strong tools.

Element X vs Classic, Performance, and UX

• Element Classic mobile is being phased out; it remains in app stores at least through 2025.
• Element X:
  • Supporters say it is now near feature parity (threads, spaces, sliding sync) and much faster than Classic on large accounts.
  • Detractors report missing features (commands, some calling behavior, certain auth flows), sluggishness, and bugs; some app‑store reviews are cited.
  • There is confusion around calling: Element X uses Matrix 2.0 / MatrixRTC with a group‑call server (Element Call) rather than classic 1:1 TURN-based calls; maintainers say this simplifies admin but acknowledge interop gaps and plan to update docs.
  • Performance reports are mixed: some see multi‑second startup vs sub‑second in Classic; maintainers attribute some of this to server setup or iOS beta issues and request logs.

Desktop Clients, Electron, and Alternatives

• Users complain that the current Element desktop (Electron) is slow and buggy relative to how “simple” chat feels conceptually.
• It’s noted that modern chat apps are actually complex (E2EE, threads, media, pins, etc.), and many desktop messengers using Electron (Signal, WhatsApp, Element) share similar latency issues; Telegram’s native desktop client is praised as unusually smooth.
• Alternatives suggested: Nheko (fast native Matrix client), Thunderbird’s basic Matrix support (too spartan for many).

Aurora, Rust SDK, and Future Architecture

• Aurora (Rust SDK on the web) excites developers who disliked the JS SDK’s docs and age.
• Clarification: Aurora is a proof‑of‑concept; the likely path is to migrate Element Web internally to the Rust SDK while reusing its new MVVM components, not fully replace it with Aurora.
• Rust SDK on web is expected to ease building third‑party clients.

Bridging Other Networks (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc.)

• For using Matrix as a unified front-end to multiple networks:
  • Self‑hosting bridges (e.g., the mautrix family) is possible but requires periodic updates as upstream APIs change; some report needing updates about 1–2 times per year.
  • A commercial service built on Matrix is recommended for those who don’t want that operational burden.
  • It’s noted that bridging Signal necessarily decrypts and re‑encrypts messages, weakening Signal’s end‑to‑end guarantees.

Security Update and Room Version 12

• A question is raised about the August security upgrade and v12 rooms: some popular third‑party bridges (Discord bridges, IRC bridge) reportedly lag v12 support, blocking upgrades for certain spaces.
• From the project side: internal retrospectives judged the rollout successful overall; forced upgrades of matrix.org‑managed rooms are planned but delayed mainly by trust‑and‑safety staffing, not technical blockers.

Institutional Adoption, Jurisdiction, and Strategy

• Matrix/Element are highlighted as chosen bases for French and German government communications (and some healthcare/military deployments).
• There’s confusion about jurisdiction (US vs EU vs UK); replies emphasize that the Matrix foundation is a UK nonprofit, Element is UK‑headquartered with EU subsidiaries, and both code and specs are open, so control is not tied to one country.
• Some unease is expressed about the focus on large institutional customers; the stated strategy is to achieve financial sustainability via those deployments, with the expectation that improvements will also benefit everyday users.
• One commenter wishes for a clearer split between a simple “WhatsApp‑style” consumer client and a more complex “Slack‑style” professional client, and wonders whether Matrix can offer something genuinely new rather than just imitating incumbents.