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 11 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 99% 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.
Observations
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Content that also appears on other registered channels
Posts published here appear word for word on 1 other registered channel. They sit inside a group of 5 channels that share the same post bodies with each other. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
Matching posts — open both and compare (1 of the pairs behind the counts below)
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. None of the 0 matches recorded here fall after that date, so for this entry we cannot say whether any of them carried a credit. The duplication is measured; the absence of attribution is not.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 21 comparable posts for this entry, running 23 July 2026 to 7 August 2026. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
Verbatim republication has three causes and the text separates only two: a clone/mirror, unattributed copy-paste, or BOTH channels copying a common third source that neither attributes. The spread filter (content held by at most 8 channels) reduces the third and does not remove it.
'Earliest' means earliest IN THIS CORPUS. A channel ingested one page deep will look younger than a neighbour ingested in full; corpus_coverage above is there to be checked before the direction is believed.
shared_verified_est extrapolates the sampled pass rate over the full narrow match count; sampled/passed are the numbers actually measured.
Absence of a forward header is not proof of intent: Telegram lets a channel disable forward attribution, and a credit written in the body is not parsed as attribution here (mention_edge_either_way above is the closest available signal).
Across the whole group of 5, the earliest publisher we hold is @FourPillarsFP. That is a statement about our reading window, not a claim of authorship.
Recorded under the key clone_mutual, last confirmed 8 August 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
Also posting the same content
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 4 other registered channels, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
3 measurements spanning 4 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 1,776–1,778 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
9 Aug 2026, 20:52
1,776
-2
6 Aug 2026, 07:01
1,778
no change
6 Aug 2026, 03:47
1,778
first reading
Engagement
30 posts held, back to 23 July 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 2 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
17.3%
avg views ÷ 1,776 subscribers
Avg views / post
307
30 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.544%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
30
of 30 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. It is computed over the 15 of 30 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026
Posts held
30 (23 July 2026 – 7 August 2026)
Views total
9,197
Reactions total
41
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
7 Aug 2026, 17:35 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
19 reactions across 8 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 47.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
custom 6291860280976615468
9
47.4%
👍
7
36.8%
🤔
2
10.5%
😭
1
5.26%
Custom emoji. One row above is a Telegram custom emoji, which the public preview renders as an element carrying only a numeric id — no character, and no image we can reach. The id is printed as-is rather than substituted with a look-alike glyph, because a stand-in would be our invention showing where a measurement should be. The count beside it isTelegram’s.
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 15 of the 30 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 41reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 30 most recent posts we hold, published 23 July 2026 to 7 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.
: : [크립토/코멘트] 과거 실패했던 고정금리 대출, 이제 실질적 수요가 형성되고 있다
작성자: 강희창
온체인 고정금리 대출은 과거 여러 차례 실패했으나, 이제 고정금리와 확정 만기를 실질적으로 필요로 하는 차입자들이 시장에 진입했다.
🌎 코멘트 전문 (X / 웹사이트)
FP Website | Telegram (EN / KR) | X (EN / KR)
Capital Gains Tax Exemption: Thailand's Crypto Trading Tax-Free Period Runs Until the End of 2029
• The tax exemption for crypto trading in Thailand is now set to last through December 31, 2029.
• Eligible crypto transactions remain exempt from capital gains tax during the policy period.
• The extension is intended to support Thailand's digital asset market and trading activity.
#Thailand
🗞 Source
by Asia Stabl…
정말 도움을 요청드리고 싶어 이렇게 올립니다.
정말 무거운 마음으로 이 글을 올리게됩니다.
저희 아버지는 대형회사에서 IT담당 임원으로 계십니다. 메모리가격 인상에 따라 계약을 재체결하는 과정에서 높은가격으로 재 계약을 진행하는 과정에서 제대로 이전 계약 마무리가 제대로 되지 못하고 진행이됨과 함께 최종 결재자가 되시면서 감사에서 계속해서 회사에 수백억에 가까운 손해를 입혔다고 압박을 받으시는것 같습니다.
결론이 나지 않았지만 수백억을 추징을 당할 수 있다는 압박감에… 좋지못한 선택을 시도하셨습니다.
혹시 이와관련하여 상담을 할 수 있거나 관련 전문가를 알고 계신분이 있다면 지나치치지마시고 한번만이라도 조언을 주시면 너무나도 감사하겠습니다.
제가 지금 당장 못하더라도 꼭 평생에 걸쳐서라도 보은하겠습니다
@netdebtzer0 로 연…
: : [데이터/코멘트] 데이터로 바라보는 업비트의 스테이블코인 시장 확대 전략
작성자: 캘빈
필자는 업비트 또한 수수료 무료화 이벤트의 거래량 증가 효과가 매우 일시적인 현상에 그칠 것이며, 다양한 스테이블코인의 상장이 USDT로부터의 분산효과를 충분히 일으킬 수 없으리라는 것을 충분히 예상하고 있었을 것이라고 생각한다. (만약 아니었다면 매우 유감이다.)
거래량 기반으로 계산했을 때 업비트는 지난 15일간 약 10억 원의 수수료 수익을 포기했다. 업비트가 비교적 수익성이 낮은 섹터에 굳이 수수료를 포기해가며 자원을 투입하고 있는 이유는 무엇일까? 이는 한국의 규제 환경의 변화에서 실마리를 찾을 수 있다.
첫째는 원화 스테이블코인의 도입이 가시권 안에 들어왔다는 점이다. 한국 정부는 2026년 경제성장전략에서 하반기 디지털자산기본법 제…
: : [크립토/이슈] 이더리움은 당장 발행량을 줄여야 하는가
작성자: 리자몽
- 스테이킹 비율이 50%에 도달하면 밸리데이터의 순수익률이 0이 되도록 보상 일부를 소각하는 제안 TIB(EIP-8363, Tapered Issuance Burn)가 제출됐다. 차기 하드포크 헤고타의 검토 일정을 불과 이틀 앞둔 시점이었고, 커뮤니티는 제안의 내용과 함께 사전 의견 수렴 없는 등장 방식까지 비판하고 있다.
- 소각은 프로토콜 차원에서는 모두에게 동일하게 적용되지만, 현실의 밸리데이터 시장에서는 중립적이지 않다. 수익률이 낮아지면 솔로 스테이커와 독립 운영자가 먼저 밀려나 검증자 집합이 소수 대형 사업자로 집중되고, 스테이킹 수익률을 기준금리 삼는 온체인 경제(DeFi) 전반까지 흔들릴 수 있다.
- 그럼에도 이더리움의 발행 모델은 언젠가 반드…
custom 62918602809766154682
Showing the 12 most recent of 30 posts we hold for @SOLful_hodl_life. 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
Citation-graph rank — 742,689 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.
Forward network
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.
Mentions
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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
1
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
1
vacant every time we have ever looked
@SOLful_hodl_life named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@asiastablecoin named in 2 posts, 8 August 2026 – 10 August 2026
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 9 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“슬기로운 HODL생활” (@SOLful_hodl_life), 1,776 subscribers as measured 9 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/SOLful_hodl_life.
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.
