Telegram username squatting is often reduced to a simple game of scarcity: someone claims a strong username early and hopes to profit from it later. In reality, however, the issue is more complicated. This is where the interests of the platform, brand owners, the market, and digital asset holders all collide, and the cost of getting it wrong can easily outweigh the potential upside.
The technological foundation of NFT usernames has already been covered in detail in the article “Secondary Market for Telegram Usernames. Part 1. The Technology Behind NFT Usernames”. The focus here is different: what exactly counts as squatting in Telegram, where the boundaries of acceptable behavior lie, how squatting basic usernames differs from holding NFT usernames, and what kinds of risks are involved.
Telegram officially divides usernames into two types: basic usernames and collectible usernames. In this article, NFT usernames refers specifically to Telegram’s collectible usernames.
What is username squatting?
Username squatting usually means claiming a strong or scarce username not for genuine use, but primarily for future gain. That gain may take the form of resale, holding the username in reserve, blocking others from accessing it, trying to profit from future demand, or putting pressure on a brand owner who may eventually want that username.
One point should be clarified right away: not every case of holding a rare username amounts to squatting. If a username is actually being used as the username of a project, channel, company, community, or service, then it is being used for its intended purpose. Squatting begins when a username is held not as a working identifier, but as a scarce resource in its own right.
When squatting takes different forms
Username squatting does not always look the same. In a broad practical sense, it is not always an unambiguously “bad” phenomenon. In a narrower sense, however—especially when it involves someone else’s brand, company, public figure, or official identity—it usually looks much more like abuse.
It is useful here to distinguish at least two types of situations.
The first is clearly bad-faith squatting. These are cases where someone claims the username of another brand, company, public figure, or project in order to pressure them into a sale later, interfere with a launch, or extract value from someone else’s identity. In that situation, it is difficult to view squatting as a neutral market strategy.
The second is speculative holding of strong usernames without a direct connection to a brand. For example, someone may claim short, rare, dictionary-word, or otherwise strong usernames in advance on the assumption that they will rise in value over time. Ethically, this is still debatable, but it is not quite as clear-cut. Some still see it as squatting; others see it as a speculative bet or an investment in a scarce digital asset.
So the most accurate way to put it is this: username squatting is not always equally harmful, but it is almost always an area of heightened conflict of interest. The closer a username is to someone else’s brand or official identity, the more clearly squatting turns from speculation into abuse.
Why This Issue Is More Complicated in Telegram Than It Seems
On the surface, it all looks simple: there is a good username, someone gets to it first, and then tries to extract value from that fact. But within Telegram, what matters is not only which username has been claimed, but also what regime it exists under.
Basic usernames exist entirely within the platform’s own rules. Collectible usernames function as public identifiers much like basic usernames, but they can also be bought and sold through Fragment, and ownership is secured on the TON blockchain. The owners of those usernames can assign them to their chats, sell them to others, or simply hold them for later use. As a result, two usernames may look identical on the surface while being very different in terms of ownership and circulation.
That is why squatting in Telegram cannot be discussed as a single, uniform phenomenon. Squatting a basic username and holding an NFT username may be driven by similar motives, but they take place under different rules and lead to different consequences.
What Squatting Basic Usernames Looks Like
Basic Telegram usernames are distributed according to a simple rule: whoever claims an available username first gets it. That is the basic logic behind squatting—claim a strong username early and wait for the moment when someone else wants it.
But there is an important limitation here. Telegram explicitly states that it may reclaim usernames attached to inactive bots and channels, as well as usernames that are openly squatted. That means a strategy built around holding a strong basic username on an empty channel or an unused bot is not fully protected from the outset: the username remains inside a system controlled by the platform itself.
This is the core weakness of platform-level squatting. Formally, the username may be taken, but the stability of that control is limited if Telegram decides that what it is seeing is not real use, but abuse of scarcity.
What Squatting NFT Usernames Looks Like
The situation is different with NFT usernames. Telegram states that collectible usernames can be bought and sold through Fragment, and that ownership of them is secured by TON. If such a username is already taken, Telegram does not assign it to someone else; it is controlled by its current owner.
Telegram’s documentation also explains that the owner can assign such a username to an account, bot, channel, or group, and then disable it or change its display order if needed.
That is why, in the NFT username segment, squatting no longer looks like a simple abuse of an internal platform setting. Here, it is a market asset. A person can buy a strong username, not use it immediately, and hold it in anticipation of future demand—and technically speaking, that is not merely claiming a username, but owning a digital asset.
That does not make the practice automatically risk-free or beyond criticism, but it changes the nature of the conflict itself. In the case of a basic username, the dispute is over a platform resource. In the case of an NFT username, the dispute is more often about price, access, and market-based ownership.
The Main Risks of Username Squatting
Platform Risk
For basic usernames, the main risk is that Telegram has the final say. The platform may reclaim usernames attached to inactive bots and channels, as well as usernames that are openly squatted. That means holding a basic username for future resale always takes place on someone else’s territory and under someone else’s rules.
Brand Risk
Another major risk is conflict with brand owners, companies, and official projects. Telegram specifically says that if the basic username you want is already taken and is not collectible, the platform may help you obtain it for an account or channel if you have the same username on at least two of the following three platforms: Facebook, Twitter/X, and Instagram. For such requests, Telegram directs users to @Username_bot. This means that trying to hold an obviously brand-related basic username is not just a play on scarcity—it is a strategy with a heightened risk of being challenged.
Reputational Risk
The more obvious the connection between a claimed username and someone else’s brand, public figure, or official identity, the more that strategy starts to look less like an investment and more like parasitism on someone else’s identity. Even if it does not result in the loss of the username, it can still create a toxic reputation around it that later interferes with resale or use.
Market Risk
In the NFT username segment, many people overestimate the mere fact of ownership. A strong username may look valuable, but that does not mean a buyer will quickly appear at the desired price. Owning an NFT username is not a guarantee of a successful sale; it means holding an asset that may sit unsold for a long time. Telegram and Fragment describe a model of permanent ownership and the ability to sell, but that is not the same as automatic liquidity.
Operational Risk
The higher the value of a username, the greater the chance of running into phishing, fake intermediaries, false guarantees, careless transactions, and attempts to take control of the asset. For basic usernames, the weak point has historically been the moment of release and re-claiming. For NFT usernames, the risk shifts toward the wallet, signing actions, and unofficial arrangements outside the standard infrastructure. Telegram’s documentation makes it clear that management of collectible usernames is built into official platform mechanisms rather than relying on “manual” transfers.
How Telegram May Act If a Brand Owner Comes Forward
If the dispute concerns a basic username, Telegram does leave room for intervention. The platform may help in obtaining the username if the claimant can prove matching external identity, and it also explicitly reserves the right to reclaim usernames from inactive channels and bots, as well as usernames that are openly squatted. In that area, a brand owner can genuinely have an advantage, especially if they already have confirmed presence on other platforms.
If the dispute concerns a collectible username, Telegram’s official position is different: such usernames are not reassigned by the platform; they are controlled by their owners. In practice, that means that in the case of an NFT username, the dispute more often comes down to the market, negotiation, and price rather than Telegram support. In Telegram’s official materials describing collectible usernames, there is no separate mechanism stating that such a username may remain with its owner in TON and Fragment while being forcibly barred from use inside Telegram itself. In other words, based on the publicly available official wording, it cannot be stated with confidence that Telegram does this.
There is also another important scenario. If the dispute goes beyond a simple question of who should control a username and turns into impersonation, fraud, or passing oneself off as someone else, Telegram directs such cases to @NoToScam. At that point, the conflict moves from “who should own the username” to “is the audience being misled?”
In addition, a brand owner may strengthen their position through verification of an official channel, group, or bot. Telegram says it generally verifies active official channels, bots, and public groups belonging to organizations and public figures if they have verified accounts on at least two external platforms; in some cases, a link from an official website may also be taken into account. At the same time, Telegram explicitly notes that verification does not provide any additional powers and does not transfer rights to a username—it simply helps users distinguish the official source.
Is It Worth Doing at All?
If we are talking about basic usernames, this looks less and less reliable as a long-term strategy. Squatting here depends on the assumption that the username can be held long enough to use or transfer profitably later. But because Telegram can intervene, and because brand owners have additional arguments in disputes, the durability of that strategy remains limited.
If we are talking about NFT usernames, the situation is more complex. Here, the model itself allows a username to be held as an asset, which means that holding strong usernames really can be part of a market strategy. But this is no longer a simple trick—it is a full-fledged activity involving risky digital assets. It requires capital, an understanding of liquidity, clear-headed judgment, and a willingness to accept that some usernames will not produce the expected result.
The most practical conclusion here is fairly direct: buying brand-related usernames—especially at a high price—is usually not a great idea. For basic usernames, there is the risk of Telegram stepping in. For NFT usernames, there is the risk of an expensive and highly uncertain deal, along with the possibility of conflict over how that username can be used. If anyone considers such a strategy at all, it should only be within an amount they can afford to lose completely in the event of a dispute, frozen demand, or a failed resale.
Conclusion
Username squatting in Telegram cannot be reduced to the formula “claimed early, therefore won.” Within the platform, there are two different username regimes, and almost everything depends on that distinction: the stability of ownership, the likelihood of conflict, the scope of Telegram’s intervention, and the very nature of the risk. Basic usernames remain part of the platform’s internal system. Collectible usernames also exist as assets whose ownership is secured by TON.
So the conclusion is very simple.
Squatting basic usernames always means playing on someone else’s platform and by someone else’s rules. Holding NFT usernames means playing in a market environment instead, but still without guarantees, without automatic liquidity, and without protection from conflicts involving brands and official identities. Which means that if anyone is going to pursue this strategy at all, they should only pay as much as they can comfortably afford to lose.
