Channel
@AMLcryptonews_eng
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
3,243subscribers
-16 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002450690217 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @AMLcryptonews_eng |
| Created | Between 1 September 2024 and 31 March 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 5 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 15 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/AMLcryptonews_eng |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 2026, 01:43 | 3,243 | -5 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 02:14 | 3,248 | -5 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 06:12 | 3,253 | -6 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 04:48 | 3,259 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 00:49 | 3,259 | first reading |
17 posts held, back to 9 June 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 6 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 17 (9 June 2025 – 6 August 2026) |
| Views total | 508 |
| Reactions total | 8 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 23:39 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
14 reactions across 8 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 57.1% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 8 | 57.1% | |
| 🔥 | 4 | 28.6% | |
| ❤ | 2 | 14.3% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 9 of the 17 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 15reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 9 June 2025 to 6 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Stole $500,000, instantly lost $372,000. Happy to help recover it - right after KYC 😆 Today on Base, a phishing victim was drained of 501,940 USDC. Theft transaction: 0xd2324b49161b53218651eae2852f8684fa68015cfcada94e5c0ad14030fc62ba Attacker wallet: 0x920d3b63541eAFe13E05dc4f3453904102c39708 The attacker then went to convert the stolen funds into ETH – and took a responsible approach to it. First, a test swap: sen…
👍1🔥1
Funds from the ChainConnect incident have been returned What happened On 26 July 2026 the ChainConnect bridge (chainconnect.com) was compromised. Bridge operations were paused immediately. Approximately $650,000 was drained from the bridge contracts in 23 transactions across four networks: Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain, Avalanche C-Chain and Polygon. The attacker swapped the stolen assets into each chain's native tok…
🔥3👍2❤1
Scammers vs. the Hacker On July 11, 2026, Bonzo Finance (Hedera) was exploited: through a vulnerability in the Supra oracle, the attacker spoofed the SAUCE price and drained ~$9M. The funds were swapped to ETH and sent to Tornado Cash - we're working on untangling the mixer, more on that separately. But while we were tracking the hacker's addresses on the graph, something else started happening around them - unrela…
Step by Step: A Timeline of the Hinkal Attack Stage 0 - On-chain preparation 07-01 09:35:59 - test run through Tornado Cash, a day before the incident 07-02 19:02:11 - ZEC → ETH via Vizor.cash (0.26 ETH, ~$436) - funding addresses for testing and the attack 07-02 19:05:11 - ETH → USDC via OKX DEX to test the Hinkal vulnerability Stage 1 - Execution 07-02 19:56-22:21 - final testing of the vulnerability 07-02 21:42:…
👍1
Privacy Without Proof: How Hinkal Was Exploited On July 2, the privacy protocol Hinkal lost ~$797K to a contract-logic flaw - a "proofless deposit": a deposit was credited without a valid zero-knowledge proof, followed by a series of USDC withdrawals. The very mechanism the protocol's privacy relies on - the proof itself - is what broke. The funds then moved through a set of privacy tools - Tornado Cash, Zcash, and…
👍1
😞 Why do we keep falling for scammers? Reality is usually messier than we’d like. A beautiful illusion often feels easier to live with. That’s why people are drawn to self-deception: lies offer hope, simple answers, and the comforting illusion that life is under control, that happiness is just around the corner. 🤯 Often, deep down, a person knows they’re being deceived. But instead of facing an uncomfortable truth,…
👍1
🎯 5 Signs You’re Dealing with Crypto Scammers Save this - it might come in handy. All examples are based on real AML Crypto investigations. 👉 Full breakdown on our website: amlcrypto.io 1️⃣ “Technical error. To unlock your transfer, send the same amount again.” A classic psychological trap: pay once more - lose once more. No legitimate platform ever asks you to make an extra payment just to withdraw your own fun…
👍1
💬 Talking to a Bybit representative? Make sure they really work for the company! Just like on any large platform with an active community, Bybit is not immune to fraudsters. By knowing their tactics, you can protect your funds. 🔎 Common schemes used by scammers to steal users’ assets or personal data: • Transferring funds to a Bybit Web3 wallet followed by convincing the user to undergo an “AML check.” • Sending …
👍1
🏴☠️ The Multisig Trap: A Scam for Those Trying to Steal This isn’t a new scheme — but it’s a powerful lesson. Because the victim here is someone who tried to profit from someone else’s “mistake.” 💡 How it works: • In a Telegram group, a message appears from a supposed “newbie”: “I don’t understand how to withdraw from my wallet… Here’s my SEED phrase.” • The wallet appears to hold between $1,000 and $10,00…
Public Figure Hacked: Send 1000 USDT, Get 2x the Disappointment 👻 It all starts with a seemingly “hot” giveaway from a famous person or project. At first glance, it looks totally legit: • The account is real and verified (blue checkmark, full post history, large following). • A post/story/tweet appears: “To celebrate our new project launch, we’re giving away crypto! Send 1000 USDT and get 2000 back!” • A wa…
🧾 The P2P Trap: Fake Receipts and Fiat You Never Received There’s a growing scam in P2P crypto trades — and it primarily targets newcomers to the space. Fraudsters can see your experience level. Most P2P platforms display how many trades you’ve completed. Beginners are chosen on purpose. The whole scheme relies on a common misconception: That the exchange acts as a guarantor for the fiat transfer. Yes — the excha…
❤1
SaaS Goes Dark: How Ransomware Demands Crypto Ransoms Today, ransomware isn’t about a “lone genius with a laptop.” It’s a structured criminal business model. Services are sold using a SaaS model (Ransomware-as-a-Service), and attacks are launched at scale. How it works: • There are groups that breach corporate infrastructures. The access they gain is then sold on darknet forums and in Telegram groups. Technique…
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @AMLcryptonews_eng. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 435,997 of 1,478,351entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“AML Crypto: all about crypto crime” (@AMLcryptonews_eng), 3,243 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/AMLcryptonews_eng.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.