Channel
@FarmGo_News
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
208,070subscribers
-2,050 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 100,000–316,228.
| Telegram ID | -1002224901794 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @FarmGo_News |
| Created | Between 1 June 2024 and 30 September 2024— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 12 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 9 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/FarmGo_News |
Crypto & trading — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 8 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 88% 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.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 22:03 | 208,070 | -301 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 18:24 | 208,371 | -460 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 20:21 | 208,831 | -233 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 17:02 | 209,064 | -373 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 14:27 | 209,437 | -366 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 10:54 | 209,803 | -292 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 10:11 | 210,095 | -25 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 01:45 | 210,120 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 01:39 | 210,120 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 14 March 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 17 pagesof 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 2 April 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
15 reactions across 9 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 73.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 11 | 73.3% | |
| 🔥 | 2 | 13.3% | |
| ☃ | 1 | 6.67% | |
| 🍾 | 1 | 6.67% |
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 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 15reactions 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 14 March 2026 to 2 April 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.
Which layer do you think matters most?
The shares total 122%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
☃1
Introducing: Neural Trading Framework v0.1 A system designed to enhance trading decisions through structured execution. 4 Core Layers: • Signal Layer • Reaction Layer • Execution Layer • Feedback Layer Most traders only see the first.
❤1🔥1
AI won't replace traders. But traders using AI will replace traders who don't.
Which layer should AI assist?
The shares total 130%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Short-term trading operates in milliseconds of advantage. If your reaction delay exceeds 0.5s your signal quality matters less than you think. Latency compounds.
🔥1
Human intuition detects opportunity. AI executes the plan.
Emotional bias enters trading in three moments: • Entry hesitation • Exit delay • Revenge positioning AI doesn't remove emotions. It removes emotional execution.
Trading is not forecasting. It's structured reaction.
In high volatility, Which matters more?
The shares total 106%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Prediction-based trading fails in unstable environments. Reaction-based trading adapts to volatility shifts. The key metric: Reaction window.
❤2🍾1
Trading performance is a systems problem. Not an opinion problem.
❤1
What do you optimize first?
The shares total 108%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
❤1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @FarmGo_News. 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.
The 5 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Which layer do you think matters most?
The shares total 122%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Which layer should AI assist?
The shares total 130%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
In high volatility, Which matters more?
The shares total 106%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
What do you optimize first?
The shares total 108%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Technical question: What is the biggest performance killer?
The shares total 115%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 14 March 2026 to 2 April 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank — 990,375 of 1,151,006entries 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.
Named by 2 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.
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s.When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 11 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
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.
This channel appears in 33 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 12 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“VibePredict.ai” (@FarmGo_News), 208,070 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/FarmGo_News.
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.