3 measurements spanning 7 days, net +1. 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 323–324 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Aug 2026, 14:09
324
+1
6 Aug 2026, 21:48
323
no change
6 Aug 2026, 19:49
323
first reading
Engagement
14 posts held, back to 17 April 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 pageof 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 14 posts for this entry, the most recent from 13 July 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Reaction mix
799 reactions across 14 posts, in 2 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 51.9% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
custom 5371087041528367289
415
51.9%
custom 5447630192036040634
384
48.1%
Custom emoji. Every 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 counts beside them areTelegram’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 14 of the 14 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 799reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 14 most recent posts we hold, published 17 April 2026 to 13 July 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
43
across the posts below
Posts paid on
7
of 14 we hold a reading for · 50%
Most on one post
11
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @Vasi_Liyyy. 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 14 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 17 April 2026 to 13 July 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.
Рисовала в магми с Вонс
Сначала не понял, что рисовала рядом с ней на одном холсте, а потом когда понял был вахуи. 😳 Рядом со мной рисовала ещё крутая художница
Фулл холст в комментариях.
Большое спасибо за целых 12 звездочек!!!😳😳😳💖 @Mavv07 💖😳😳😳😳😳😳
Спасибо большущеее @tomagoti за звездочку! 🫣
Грибочек снова меня балует! Спасибо большое за звёздочки ✨ @Littlegribochek
#genshin
Валера помогает Ною завязывать хвост, как мило 💀
Спасибо большое вам за 300+ человечков! В честь этого можете скинуть то, что бы вы хотели, чтобы я нарисовала. От ваших ОСов до фандомых персонажей
Большое спасибо за звездочкууу!! 🤪 @morta_mi
Большое спасибо грибочку за звездочку !!! @Littlegribochek ✋😳🤚
#genshin
Наконец-то добралась до реквестов. ✋💀🤚
Первый для @QsiQsiEshka
Оригинал персонажа в комментариях)
Напоминаю, что этот пост актуален всегда.
Для участия не нужны репосты и лайки. Просто кидайте по
указанной тематике )
Showing the 12 most recent of 14 posts we hold for @Vasi_Liyyy. 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.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 761,259 of 1,548,671entries 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 8 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.
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 13 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Vasi_Liy” (@Vasi_Liyyy), 324 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Vasi_Liyyy.
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.
