5 measurements spanning 7 days, net -13. 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 4,227–4,244 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 16:25
4,229
-7
9 Aug 2026, 19:11
4,236
-5
6 Aug 2026, 16:40
4,241
-1
6 Aug 2026, 04:06
4,242
no change
6 Aug 2026, 02:50
4,242
first reading
Engagement
17 posts held, back to 29 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 5 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
33.2%
avg views ÷ 4,229 subscribers
Avg views / post
1,410
17 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.321%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
17
of 17 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 9 of 17 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 5 August 2026
Posts held
17 (29 July 2026 – 5 August 2026)
Views total
23,889
Reactions total
43
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 12:01 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
43 reactions across 9 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 83.7% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
36
83.7%
👍
5
11.6%
👏
1
2.33%
😁
1
2.33%
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 17 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 43reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 29 July 2026 to 5 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.
제가 삼프로 티비에 출연하게 되었습니다. 항상 구독자의 입장이었다가 이렇게 직접 출연하게 되니 감회가 매우 새롭네요.
구독자 300만의 채널에서 무엇을 이야기를 해야 업계에 조금이나마 도움이 될 수 있을까 고민하다가 "과세"이야기를 좀 해봤습니다.
그냥 단순히 "과세 유예해주세요."라는 이야기를 하려는 것이 아니라, 리서치 회사의 대표로써 왜 현재 크립토 과세가 시장의 왜곡을 일으킬 수 있는지, 그리고 이게 왜 더 많은 정부 개입과 규제를 야기할 수 있는지를 이야기 해봤습니다.
1. 현재 정부의 정책 기조와 과세 체계는 서로 상충됩니다. 정부는 법인의 거래소 계좌를 점진적으로 허용하겠다는 방향을 제시하고 있습니다. 이는 분명 업계에는 긍정적인 변화입니다. 저희처럼 벨리데이터를 운영하며 업무 특성상 가상자산을 지속적으로 취득하는 회사들은,…
✅ [단독] 단일종목 레버리지 '사실상 상폐' 방안 나왔다…업계 도입 검토 착수
- 개인 보유 레버리지 ETF 매물 장내 매집…거래량 줄여 상폐 효과
- 운용사, 당국 추진시 동참 합의…괴리율 확대 문제 변수
31일 뉴스1 취재를 종합하면 지난 29일 오후 금융투자협회가 단일종목 레버리지 대책 논의를 위해 자산운용사 대표 및 증권사 LP 담당 임원을 소집한 회의에선 LP가 시장에서 단일종목 레버리지 물량을 매수만 하고 매도는 하지 않는 방안을 시행할 수 있다는 데 의견을 모으고 구체적인 도입 방안을 논의하기로 했다.
이날 회의에서 논의된 방안대로 LP가 단일종목 레버리지 ETF를 매수만 하고 매도 물량을 공급하지 않으면 시장에서 거래되는 ETF 물량이 지속적으로 감소한다. 거래 물량을 점점 말라붙게 해 사실상 '상장 폐지'에 준하는 수준…
Market Thoughts 30 Jul
- 지금 당장은 좋은 거래 아이디어가 0개입니다. 제 최고의 아이디어는 아마 IBKR / INTC일 겁니다. 사실, V-회복이 일어날 만한 경우를 보지 못합니다. 왜냐하면 V-회복 조건이 며칠 전에 이미 지나갔기 때문입니다.
- 최선의 시나리오는 시장이 치유되기 위해 이 수준에서 꽤 오랜 기간 동안 횡보하는 것입니다. 이것이 최선의 경우이자 제 기본 시나리오입니다. 이런 환경에서는 좋은 스윙 트레이드를 잡을 게 없습니다. 왜냐하면 시장이 먼저 손을 드러내도록 내버려 두는 게 낫기 때문입니다.
- "하지만 AI는 획기적인 기술이고 이 모든 게 좋은 매수 기회야" 저는 이 말에 완전히 동의하지 않습니다. 사실, 지난 반년 이상 동안 AI의 상태는 즉각적인 두드러진 개선을 보이지 않았습니다 - 우리는 …
이거보고 다 팔았습니다
애초에 이 사람의 논리와 전략이 정말 타당하다 생각해서 시작한 주식투자였는데, 위기에 처했다고 하니 (사실상 파산 직전인듯) 수익금이 조금이라도 남아잇을때 끊는 것이 맞다고 생각들었네요
정말로 큰 충격입니다
코스닥 지수 같은거나 정말 초장기로 보고 사서 들고가야겠어요
라이터와 같은 얼리 프로젝트를 찾는 꿀팁을 하나 알려드리자면
RootData에 Follower Update라는 것이 꽤나 유익함.
프로젝트가 정식 출시하기 전에 어떤 팔로워들이
팔로우하는지 알려주는 것임.
이런 애들 팔로우해서 "팔로우 목록"들 주기적으로 체크해줘도 교집합 보이고 자체 발견 능력이 길러짐.
전 이것도 꽤 많이 활용해서 공유.
이런 애들(Mike, laksh) 팔로우 목록이 대표적 예시.
❤8
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @Web3LearningWithInger. 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 — 121,394 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 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.
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 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“돈포하 I Dont focus on hype” (@Web3LearningWithInger), 4,229 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Web3LearningWithInger.
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.
