Telegram have said that you can’t trust Signal because the developers live in the US and something something the CIA, which is pretty ridiculous. They rolled their own crypto and they aren’t cryptographers, which should be reason enough not to trust its security: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegr...

This answer is ridiculous. They got world level mathematicians in their team, what more do you want? Who are those "cryptographers"? And why those cryptographers don't break Telegram if they think that their crypto is broken?

Again, crypto is either broken or not. Telegram crypto is not broken. It's fine. Not everyone might like it, but that does not matter. I don't know story about CIA (although I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Signal is honeypot), so can't comment about that.

Mathematicians are not cryptographers. Crypto is harder to trust when the rationale behind it hasn’t been justified. Signal’s crypto is very easy to justify. That’s about it.

>Again, crypto is either broken or not.

Security is not a yes/no thing. It is equal to the price to break it. If the cryptography is well-tested for decades, the price is much higher. This is not true for Telegram. It does not matter how good its creators are.