18 measurements spanning 31 days, net -1,100. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 9,130–10,560 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
6 Sept 2026, 00:59
9,295
-49
2 Sept 2026, 05:53
9,344
-90
29 Aug 2026, 22:35
9,434
-158
26 Aug 2026, 15:24
9,592
-260
23 Aug 2026, 10:06
9,852
-132
19 Aug 2026, 13:43
9,984
-32
18 Aug 2026, 17:04
10,016
-74
17 Aug 2026, 14:36
10,090
-30
16 Aug 2026, 07:34
10,120
-80
14 Aug 2026, 17:39
10,200
-85
13 Aug 2026, 06:56
10,285
-43
12 Aug 2026, 04:46
10,328
-8
11 Aug 2026, 02:28
10,336
-26
10 Aug 2026, 00:30
10,362
-6
9 Aug 2026, 03:54
10,368
-10
8 Aug 2026, 03:31
10,378
-4
7 Aug 2026, 04:06
10,382
-13
6 Aug 2026, 05:48
10,395
first reading
Engagement
26 posts held, back to 23 June 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 36 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
4.41%
avg views ÷ 9,295 subscribers
Avg views / post
410
6 posts measured
Reaction rate
4.68%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
6
of 26 held
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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 25 August 2026
Posts held
26 (23 June 2026 – 25 August 2026)
Views total
2,457
Reactions total
115
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
29 Aug 2026, 05:51 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.
Reaction mix
578 reactions across 26 posts, in 8 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 30.3% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
175
30.3%
🔥
113
19.6%
❤🔥
83
14.4%
❤
80
13.8%
👏
72
12.5%
👌
33
5.71%
⚡
16
2.77%
🎉
6
1.04%
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 26 of the 26 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 578 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 26 most recent posts we hold, published 23 June 2026 to 25 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
131
across the posts below
Posts paid on
15
of 26 we hold a reading for · 58%
Most on one post
32
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @ConcordiumNews. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 26 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 23 June 2026 to 25 August 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
💸 X Space Tomorrow
Stablecoins are changing how money moves. AI agents could change who, or what, is making the payment.
Tomorrow, our CGO Varun Kabra joins Graham Stone from Bitcoin.com to discuss the future of digital payments, wallets, AI agents and trust.
Set your reminder 👇
🔗 https://x.com/concordium/status/2091923320593891329
Investors Can Now Check Concordium against Blockworks' Token Transparency Framework
Concordium’s CCD disclosure is now live on Blockworks’ Token Transparency Framework.
Of 76 B1 filings on the dashboard, only 26 are rated Complete. Concordium’s is one of them.
Read the blog and share your thoughts 👇
https://x.com/concordium/status/2090790577294246074
🔐 X Space Tomorrow
AI agents don’t need malicious intent to become a security risk. Sometimes, they just need a goal and an insecure system.
Tomorrow, Muslim Saadat and Andy Nelson join Bandit to discuss Security in the Age of AI Agents, guardrails, accountability and more.
Set your reminder 👇
🔗 https://x.com/concordium/status/2090411261876146292
🎙 Live Session Tomorrow
AI agents are learning how to pay. But who stands behind the payment?
Tomorrow, Theo Bachmann and Andy Nelson will join Chris Jourdan for a live discussion on x402, AI agents, identity, and the next layer for agentic payments.
Tune in and set your reminder 👇
🔗 https://x.com/concordium/status/2087596190020030626
Google Knows Which Agent Is Running. It Doesn’t Know Who Sent It.
Google can prove which AI agent is running. But when that agent interacts outside its organisation, another question remains:
Who stands behind it?
We explore why runtime identity and accountability are two different layers of the AI agent stack.
Read the blog & share your thoughts 👇
https://x.com/concordium/status/2087163851007807574
🎙 X Space This Friday
Yesterday, we explored what ERC-8004 solves and why discovery isn’t the same as accountability.
This Friday, Theo Bachmann and Andy Nelson will join Banditxbt for a live discussion on AI agents, ERC-8004, privacy, accountability, and the next trust layer for agentic commerce.
🔗 Set your reminder here:
https://x.com/Concordium/status/2085022611856392456
ERC-8004 Solves Discovery. It Doesn't Solve Accountability. Here's the Difference.
AI agents are getting identities.
But identity alone doesn’t create trust.
Our latest deep dive explores what ERC-8004 solves, what independent research has uncovered, and why discovery is still different from accountability.
🔗 Read more: https://x.com/concordium/status/2084626899628949662
Building The Agentic Economy
Join us tomorrow for an X Space with Ledger!
Our CTO, Peter Marirosans, will be joining Ledger for a discussion on what the agentic economy needs to scale securely.
👉 Set your reminder here: https://x.com/concordium/status/2082488941085913587
x402, Explained: How AI Agents Pay, What the Numbers Say, and the Identity Question It Leaves Open
AI agents can finally pay for things on their own.
That’s a huge milestone.
But there’s one question the industry still hasn’t answered.
Who’s behind the agent?
Our latest deep dive explores how x402 works, what the adoption numbers actually show, and why payments alone aren’t enough.
🔗 Read more: https://x.com/co…
Concordium Node 10.0.10 for Mainnet and Testnet has been released.
This version fixes a bug where pending blocks with unknown parents got relayed to peers.
🔘 Download
🔘 Github
A Morse Code Message Moved as Much as $200,000 Between Two AI Agents
The most important AI security story isn’t about broken cryptography.
It’s about missing accountability.
A recent incident involving Grok and Bankr showed how an AI agent could be manipulated into moving assets worth up to $200,000 without breaking a single cryptographic guarantee.
🔗 Read the full article: https://x.com/concordium/status/208027…
👍14❤2
Showing the 12 most recent of 26 posts we hold for @ConcordiumNews. 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.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Mentions
Named by 3 registered channels — 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.
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
Casper Official Announcements @casperofficialann · 36,197 Telegram ranks this channel #6 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 1 September 2026
Расскажи! @rasskazhi_channel · 30,892 Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 23 here — alongside 22 others — read 6 September 2026
Kapkap Hub News @Kapkaphub_ann · 393,093 Telegram ranks this channel #19 of 80 here — alongside 79 others — read 2 September 2026
Portal to Bitcoin Announcements @portaltobitcoin_announcements · 88,298 Telegram ranks this channel #63 of 88 here — alongside 87 others — read 1 September 2026
This channel appears in 4 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Cite this entry
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 6 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Concordium News” (@ConcordiumNews), 9,295 subscribers as measured 6 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ConcordiumNews.
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.