Khabib Nurmagomedov Sells Out Digital Papakha Hats In Controversial Telegram Auction

X/@TeamKhabib

Khabib Nurmagomedov, the retired UFC champion, has profited from the NFT Papakha hats besides the exclusive auction conducted via Telegram, where his whole collection has been purchased. He always wanted to introduce his Dagestani culture to the world through digital art, and while some of the fans support his move by calling it the “cultural importance of the digital items,” others criticize him for being broke just and “in need” of money.

Advertisement

The ending of the auction came with the announcement from the ex-fighter that the total was all sold. In a video showcasing the items, Khabib Nurmagomedov, mentioned the significance of the cultural headdress. “In Dagestan this head has meaning,” he declared. “It is Papacha. It indicates your origin, It is about nobility, Discipline. The principles my father instilled in me.” He called the digital counterpart a “gift of worth” which the owners could give to their friends and relatives, a contemporary method of passing on customs through digital collectibles on the Ton blockchain.

Social media was highly polarized. A user was very straightforward in labeling Khabib Nurmagomedov as a “disgusting fake muslim scammer.” Another user expressed similar views and added, “Maaan, even the most honest person gets corrupted by fast haram cash grabs.” This comment voiced the feelings of some who considered themselves deceived by the online auction and saw it as a watershed moment in the morally upright image Khabib had been building up.

One of the major points of the dispute was the product itself. A user inquired about the fundamental value, ‘were these papakhas merely digital assets?’ This ambiguity was cleared up by another user who said, ‘According to reports, Khabib’s Papakha auction on Telegram was for digital collectibles only, issued as NFTs on the TON network. There’s no mention of physical items or shipping in the auction.’ This explanation served as a starting point for the criticism, with one person asserting, ‘digital Parakas NFT is nothing but a digital sticker. It has no worth.’

When more and more people joined the argument with the intention to support the idea, the discussion got more intellectual. A user named Magomed Kurbaitaev provided a detailed analogy between the Telegram gifts and an already existing digital culture as his backup. ‘Alright, a lot of people still do not get Telegram gifts, so let me put it out there in plain terms,’ he said. He likened the gifting of the digital Persians on Russian social networks and today’s scenarios like Fortnite outfits and CS:GO skins. ‘You are not buying the animation,’ he claimed. ‘You are paying for its meaning Scarcity + demand + identity = value.’

Nevertheless, this argument did not lessen the critics’ concerns about the morality of the matter. One comment maintained, ‘Because many of them are not fully aware of what they are buying. They simply buy it because Khabib says it is significant, when in fact they are just keys buying a special picture of a hat on the computer. I don’t think what Khabib and Ali are doing is a full-blown scam, but it is sleazy.’ This comment actually encapsulates the whole issue, pointing out that the concern is not so much about the product as it is about the perception of taking advantage of the fans’ confidence by selling them a digital asset whose intrinsic value is questionable.

Advertisement

That auction’s success has demonstrated once again Khabib Nurmagomedov’s brand power and that a small but loyal part of his audience is ready to pay for and to continue supporting his digital culture vision. The very strong resistance, however, demonstrates that the split is evident. For every enthusiast who regards a blockchain-based artistic creation as cultural heritage piece worthy there is another one who sees a devalued character of his/her cherished idol. The merchandise has changed ownership, yet the issue on where to draw the line dividing cultural exchange from commercial exploitation is being debated. This case has shown the struggles faced by public figures in finding the balance between tradition and modern digital economy.