Pavel Durov and more than 100 children: the story behind his sperm donations

How many children does Pavel Durov really have?

An independently verified total cannot be established from the sources linked here. In June 2025, Durov told Le Point about six children with three partners and more than 100 additional children conceived through sperm donation. He cited the clinic as the source of the latter figure. Interview with Le Point

He was clearer still in Lex Fridman's podcast in September 2025: he did not know exactly how many biological children he had. Even an apparently precise figure such as 106 is therefore uncertain. Six children and more than 100 others do not provide an exact, documented count. Podcast transcript: Children section

The figure is also about biological parentage, rather than necessarily being a father in everyday life. Durov explicitly spoke in the podcast about genetically related children he had never seen. More than 100 children does not mean he is bringing up more than 100 children.

How earlier donations could still lead to new births

Durov said in 2024 that he had stopped actively donating years before. He also referred to frozen sperm that was still available. There is no contradiction: years can separate the donation of a sample from its use. A fresh report about a child or a clinic offer would therefore not automatically show that Durov had donated again.

Sperm cryopreservation involves freezing sperm for later treatment. The British fertility regulator, the HFEA, explains that a sample is normally divided between several containers. This means it need not all be thawed together, and material from one donation can remain available for separate treatments. HFEA guidance on sperm freezing

In Durov's case, this means distinguishing three things: the number of donation appointments, the number of treatments and the number of children born. His reported child count cannot be converted into a particular number of samples, nor can it forecast future births.

His inheritance pledge: the 2025 announcement

The Le Point interview appeared on 18 June 2025. Durov described a will that would treat all his children equally. He said they would have access to his wealth only once 30 years had elapsed from the conversation. Durov's comments on his will

He was therefore describing a period starting with the interview, not each child's 30th birthday. This remains an announcement, too. The interview neither supplies the complete will nor explains how claims would later be evidenced and dealt with in different countries.

In his conversation with Lex Fridman, Durov made the plan conditional on those concerned being able to prove their genetic relationship to him. He described his intention for them to receive a share of his estate after his death. It does not establish a dependable sum payable to any one child. Durov on DNA evidence and inheritance

His explanation for the long delay is personal: the children should become independent. He believes that having wealth too early could weaken their motivation to build something of their own. This explains his thinking, but it is not a general conclusion about what benefits children. Durov on wealth and independence

Why no fixed inheritance share can be worked out

Dividing a fortune estimated in billions by the number of children may seem straightforward. Here, however, it is misleading. Durov himself explained to Le Point that the figures reported for his wealth mainly reflected a theoretical valuation of Telegram; the money was not simply held in a bank account. Durov on how his wealth is valued

The total number of possible descendants is uncertain, and the will's terms are unknown. There is therefore no sound basis for calculating a specific amount per child. Such a promise would not offer families a reliable financial foundation.

What the IVF offer using his sperm involves

There is also a concrete clinic offer behind the story. Moscow's AltraVita clinic advertises free IVF treatment using Durov's sperm on its website. The clinic says he is to finance the treatments and that places are limited. Its stated requirements include a maximum age of 37 and medical suitability established after examination by a doctor. AltraVita's offer

The website demonstrates that the clinic is advertising the programme. It does not independently confirm the number of women actually treated, the children born as a result or how funding is arranged in each case. The offer also does not mean that every interested woman will be accepted.

Nor are the general success figures displayed on the clinic's website specific outcome data for Durov's programme. There is no corresponding evidence on the page that this offer has already resulted in 100 children. His earlier donation figure and the subsequently advertised treatment offer should therefore be kept separate.

The article on in vitro fertilisation explains the medical process. What is particularly notable in Durov's case is the change from an anonymous donation to an offer promoted under his name. His public profile becomes part of a medical decision.

Sperm donation is different from IVF

Headlines sometimes suggest that choosing a donor is all that is involved. AltraVita's offer, though, specifically concerns IVF treatment. Donated sperm provides the genetic material; IVF is the medical procedure in which eggs are fertilised outside the body.

The usual stages include hormonal stimulation, collecting eggs, fertilisation in the laboratory and transferring an embryo into the womb. The exact treatment depends on the individual case, and it does not necessarily result in pregnancy or a birth. HFEA information on the IVF process

When reading about Durov's offer, it is therefore useful to separate a publicly known donor's identity from a person's medical decision about treatment. A promise to cover the costs does not remove the physical demands, or the need to consider individual chances and wishes.

How a donation became an offer carrying a famous name

With many sperm donations, prospective recipients first learn about the donor's health, characteristics or motivation. In this case, a world-famous name precedes those questions. That changes how the offer is seen: alongside a medical option comes a story about success, wealth and the supposed prospect of an exceptional future.

The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2025 that this connection had been deliberately promoted. It described the clinic's advertising at events and on social media, as well as a website showing Durov's photograph and the Telegram logo. The Wall Street Journal report

That is a significant shift. The donation Durov recalls as helping a friend is now marketed through his fame. Readers need to distinguish between his personal motivation, a clinic's commercial communication and the interests of the children who may be born.

Can a donor pass on intelligence and success?

With a technology entrepreneur, it may seem plausible that a successful donor would give a child particularly good prospects. Science does not support this as a promise. Intelligence is complex, with many genetic and environmental influences. These include education, nutrition and the circumstances in which a child grows up. MedlinePlus Genetics on intelligence and inheritance

A well-known life story is neither evidence of medical quality nor a blueprint for a child's personality. Business success also reflects choices, opportunities and social conditions that cannot be transferred in a sperm donation. Children with the same biological father can develop in very different ways.

This distinction matters particularly here because Durov's image accounts for much of the attention. A child would have a genetic link to him, but no obligation to be like him, enter the same profession or achieve exceptional success. For families, that freedom matters more than a famous origin.

Why the story drew such attention

Several compelling stories intersect in Durov's case: a famous technology entrepreneur, an exceptionally large number of children, the prospect of a substantial inheritance and a fertility clinic advertising with his name. Each could make a news story on its own; together they explain the continuing interest.

Another small but telling detail emerged in late 2025, when Durov shared a sketch for his donation programme's logo on Telegram. He raised the subject again himself, giving it a recognisable brand identity. Durov's post showing the logo sketch

A child may encounter these interviews, headlines and expectations years later, even though they predate that child's own exploration of their origins. This gap between a donor controlling his public story and the children's private lives is central to the significance of Durov's case.

His DNA proposal and finding half-siblings

Durov's 2024 post also announced his wish to make his DNA available so that his biological children could find one another more easily. The linked sources do not show whether usable genetic data or a protected contact process has since become available. Durov's DNA proposal

A DNA match can answer only part of the question. It may point to a genetic relationship, but it does not establish whether people want contact or how different families wish to respond. A donor seeking publicity does not change that.

The British regulator HFEA points out that home DNA testing can lead to unexpected discoveries through relatives as well. It also stresses that people conceived through donation can decide whether to learn more about their origins or seek contact. HFEA guidance on DNA tests and finding out about origins

In Durov's case, a public DNA idea would not replace protected routes to information and the voluntary decisions of those involved. The article on home DNA testing and exploring biological origins explains the opportunities and limitations.

DNA also has two distinct purposes in his story. His 2024 suggestion concerns finding biological relatives; his later inheritance statements concern proving parentage. A system that helps half-siblings contact one another would not automatically provide a formal process for an estate.

What more than 100 biological children could mean to each other

If Durov's figures are accurate, a large group of people would share a biological father. Some might want to know about one another. Others might feel their family story is already clear and want no further contact. Both responses are understandable. Shared DNA creates neither automatic closeness nor a shared definition of family.

Twelve countries also bring practical questions: which languages are spoken, where is the relevant information held and how could it stay up to date over many years? A search might concern not just the donor but half-siblings abroad and families whose expectations differ considerably.

A known identity is therefore not enough on its own. It would help to have a process that checks information, protects privacy and permits contact only with consent. Whether such a process exists for Durov's donations is not established by the sources reviewed here. This question may affect the children's future daily lives more than many reports about his fortune.

What remains unclear from his statements

Public recognition makes a donor identifiable, but it does not make the donation arrangements transparent. Durov's major announcements leave several important questions unanswered:

• How were the births recorded, and how up to date is the count?
• What were the individual families told about the donor and possible half-siblings?
• How would any new medical information reach all the families concerned later on?
• How could children establish their parentage and obtain information without having to expose themselves publicly?

These details would be needed to understand the families' circumstances. The interviews and clinic page answer them only partly. The gap between the public presentation and private records is an important feature of Durov's case.

What families can learn from the case

The case illustrates how little a famous name tells you about the quality of a donation arrangement. If you are considering sperm donation, verifiable identity and medical screening documents, clear information on family numbers and a reliable route for future enquiries matter more than public image.

The child's perspective also deserves attention from the outset. Their account of their origins should not have to be assembled from headlines. The article How do I explain sperm donation to my child? sets out how parents can talk about it in an age-appropriate way.

Durov has drawn considerable attention to sperm donation through his statements. For the families, a more personal concern remains: reliable information about their origins and the freedom to decide for themselves how this story fits into their lives.