Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for DWC @Rack

Channel

DWC @Rack

@DWCrack

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry

48subscribers

-2 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1003852295835
TypeChannel
Username@DWCrack
CreatedBetween 1 January 2026 and 29 January 2026 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded10 August 2026
Last confirmed live10 October 2026
Measurements held4
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 10 October 2026
On Telegramt.me/DWCrack

Topic

Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 30 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 78% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

4850497 August 2026 — 50 subscribers10 August 2026 — 50 subscribers30 September 2026 — 49 subscribers10 October 2026 — 48 subscribers7 August 202610 October 2026
4 measurements spanning 64 days, net -2. 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 48–50 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
10 Oct 2026, 09:5648-1
30 Sept 2026, 15:0049-1
10 Aug 2026, 11:4650no change
7 Aug 2026, 18:2550first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 29 January 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 1 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 1 February 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

343 reactions across 20 posts, in 16 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 28.3% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
😭9728.3%
🤣7622.2%
👍339.62%
🤡308.75%
❤277.87%
👎236.71%
😢185.25%
😨82.33%
🍌72.04%
😁61.75%
🖕51.46%
👏41.17%
👨‍💻41.17%
🔥30.875%
❤‍🔥10.292%
💩10.292%

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 20 of the 20 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 343 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 29 January 2026 to 1 February 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.

Recent posts

1 Feb 2026, 14:23 UTC67 views14 reactionsread 10 August 2026

Here is a remainder, @rack who once used to be clarks slave scammed 200k which was supposed to be given to the winners and 90% of the winners didn't get their winning amount which was later found out to be scammed by @rack and shared among his own team. @rack has also been accused of being involved in the rug pulling of his own community with @john/ @lick

😭10❤2🤡2

1 Feb 2026, 14:18 UTC63 views13 reactionsread 10 August 2026

Congrats @busyrolls, @sparrowsea, @Mstsimra, @RealWarriorToo, @SORBONN001, @douthinkistillcare, @Nonsecularhindu, @pyrecc, @Ed767win, @Ghastl, @zasyon, @sexualassaults, @vladislavgikov, @occult14, @herts, @asdfczg, @whitescaxace, @vltge, @theoreticlas, @asdfghew2, @igotmanyfaces, jake, @drenando, @rvkstar, @carbineers, @Gamerzaddaesports, @MI_N_ATO, @Amit45819, @Tselq1, @Aluyss, huh, @wasrtugf, @IncredibleMM, @Johnny…

👍11🤣2

30 Jan 2026, 17:43 UTC90 views10 reactionsread 10 August 2026

@rack again , as i told you @rack was involved with @john and @rack wasn't even legit at the first place. Dude is not gonna ask like he wasn't aware of it. We all saw rack was there 😭

😭10

30 Jan 2026, 17:41 UTC77 views11 reactionsread 10 August 2026
Forwarded from @J0hnLick

John did all of that purely for attention. It was planned with @rack to have posts made about him, and they were paid ads. He doesn’t need the money at all — he rug-pulled just for attention. Absolute attention seeker 🤣

😭8🔥3

30 Jan 2026, 17:34 UTC88 views9 reactionsread 10 August 2026

⚠️BREAKING: John Lick has deleted his Telegram account following a $200K rug pull. On-chain activity indicates he and his insider team immediately laundered the funds and ended the Telegram livestream. All involved parties have since deleted their Telegram accounts.

🤣6🤡3

30 Jan 2026, 02:01 UTC174 views15 reactionsread 10 August 2026

And he has lost around 35% of them gambling. I gambler can't be trusted 🗑

😭14❤1

30 Jan 2026, 01:57 UTC173 views15 reactionsread 10 August 2026

He is planning on buying some $WUMC ( johns memecoin) during the launch.

🤣10🤡4❤‍🔥1

30 Jan 2026, 01:54 UTC199 views12 reactionsread 10 August 2026

Just in ⚠️known scammer @rack has been withdrawing all the scammed gws funds to some private wallet. 93% of the scammed funds already been moved and are untraceable now.

😭10🤣2

29 Jan 2026, 18:04 UTC180 views22 reactionsread 10 August 2026

ah could this be our start? we all know what he did. Soon be posting all proofs. Let's do it together @DWCrack

🤣10❤6😭6

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @DWCrack. 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.

Forward network

Republishes

Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.

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.

Mentions

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.

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 10 October 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“DWC @Rack” (@DWCrack), 48 subscribers as measured 10 October 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/DWCrack.

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.