Channel
@catallactic
On this record: Topic · Observations · Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
5,222subscribers
+40 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002131220883 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @catallactic |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 31 May 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 | 5 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/catallactic |
Politics & activism — 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 84% 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.
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.
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.
| Posted first | Then | Overlap | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| @c4lvinlocked/28925 Aug 2026, 02:12 UTC | @catallactic/3826 · this entry5 Aug 2026, 02:13 UTC | 1.00 | under a minute |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @c4lvinlocked | 5 (5/5 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 1.00 | 17 minutes | @c4lvinlocked (4–1) |
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 20 comparable posts for this entry, running 30 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.
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.
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.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 17:44 | 5,222 | +32 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 19:51 | 5,190 | +2 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 16:43 | 5,188 | +6 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 03:46 | 5,182 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 02:07 | 5,182 | first reading |
40 posts held, back to 30 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 8 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
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 35 of 40 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 40 (30 July 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 78,793 |
| Reactions total | 237 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 04:39 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.
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
226 reactions across 27 posts, in 12 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 75.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 170 | 75.2% | |
| 👍 | 21 | 9.29% | |
| ❤🔥 | 7 | 3.10% | |
| 🔥 | 7 | 3.10% | |
| 🥰 | 5 | 2.21% | |
| 👏 | 4 | 1.77% | |
| 😱 | 3 | 1.33% | |
| 👀 | 2 | 0.885% | |
| 🖕 | 2 | 0.885% | |
| 😭 | 2 | 0.885% | |
| 🤣 | 2 | 0.885% | |
| 💯 | 1 | 0.442% |
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 35 of the 40 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 237reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 40 most recent posts we hold, published 30 July 2026 to 12 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.
저는 글을 쓸 때, AI로 문법이랑 맞춤법 정도를 띄어쓰기 해달라고 하는 경우가 많습니다. 예전엔 영문글은 그냥 한글로 쓰고 번역해달라고 하는 경우가 많았는데, 그러다보니 제 영어 실력이 퇴화되는 것을 느껴서 영문글도 영문으로 쓰고 어색한 부분이 있으면 고쳐달라고 합니다(물론 진짜 대충쓰는 글은 그냥 AI Slop으로 갈겨버리는 경우도 있는데 되도록이면 지양하려고 합니다). GPT랑 대화를 하다보면 어차피 얘도 컨텍스트를 기억하고 있어서, 전 한 달에 한 번씩 GPT한테 내 영어가 어디가 어색한지, 보완점이 어디가 필요할지를 물어봅니다. 그리고 그걸 기반으로 최대한 고치려고 노력을 많이 하는 편이에요. 확실히 제 영어 글쓰기는 문제점이 많더라구요. 그리고 요즘엔 AI한테 자동으로 매주마다 나에게 필요한 영단어나 표현법 추천해달라고 돌려서 …
❤5
오해 하시는 거 같아서.. 글 내용이 텔레그램에 맞지 않다는 것이 아니라 줄 띄어쓰기가 탤레그램이 처음이셔서 어색하다는 말씀을 드린 것이었어요. 개인적으로 요즘 1:1로 만났을 때 가장 시간 가는 줄 모르고 이야기 하는 사람이 레이어제로 알렉스님입니다. 진짜 웃기고 배울 거 많은 아조씨인데 저한테 해주는 말들의 반만이라도 채널에 공유해주시면 고정적인 팬들이 많이 생길 거 같네요. 글 써라 알렉스!!! https://t.me/mosaicalex
❤3
: : HRC의 새로운 홈페이지를 공개합니다 지난해 포필러스는 하이퍼리퀴드를 더 깊이 이해하고 분석할 수 있는 리서치 기반을 만들기 위해 HRC를 시작했습니다. 이후 HRC는 하이퍼리퀴드만을 전문적으로 다루는 독립적인 리서치 플랫폼으로 성장했습니다. 지금까지 70편 이상의 리서치와 정기 리포트를 발간했고, 최근에는 실시간 재무 데이터까지 제공하기 시작했습니다. 하이퍼리퀴드를 제대로 이해하고 싶다면, 이제 HRC에서 시작하면 됩니다. 📱 X 포스트 📰 HRC 링크 FP Website | Telegram (EN / KR) | X (EN / KR)
❤4
알렉스님은 저에게 감사한 분입니다. 크립토 업계에서 좋은 사람을 만나 믿고 함께 일하기는 쉽지 않습니다. 포필러스 안팎의 동료들을 제외하고 업계에서 진심으로 믿고 즐겁게 교류하는 분을 꼽으라면, 저에게는 알렉스님입니다. 그와중에 작년에 아시아 기관들을 모아 올바른 방향으로 이끌고 싶다는 공통된 고민이 있었고, 좋은 타이밍에 알렉스님, 100y님을 비롯한 모예드, 동이, 스튜와 함께 ASA를 시작하게 되었습니다. 시장 상황과 무관하게 즐겁게 할 수 있는 것은 결국 함께하는 사람들 덕분인 것 같네요. 요즘은 저희 스티브님과 Face Podcast도 함께 하고 계십니다. 많은 관심 부탁드립니다! https://x.com/face_east_
❤6
저의 팟캐스트 코호스트인 알렉스님이 채널을 파셨는데.. 아저씨 텔레그램 글 이렇게 쓰는 거 아니에요.
포필러스는 펭귄에게 장악당한 상태입니다.
🤣2
포필러스 "블록체인 투기 넘어 금융으로...토큰화 주식 1년새 502%↑" https://www.digitalasset.works/news/articleView.html?idxno=42398
❤🔥7
수이는 이번에 아예 방향을 틀어서 싱가폴에 몰빵하는 거 같더라구요. 불과 작년까지만 하더라도 KBW 컨퍼런스 스폰서를 했었고, 그것도 2년 연속으로 했었던 수이였는데. 돈이 없어서 그렇다? 라고 하기엔 싱가폴에서 베이스캠프 여는 거 보면 그렇다고 느껴지진 않습니다. 그냥 전략적으로 한국보다 싱가폴에 집중하는 것이 더 낫다고 판단한 거 같아요. 모나드도 이번 KBW에 뭔가를 크게 하는 거 같지도 않고. 내년엔 어떨까요? 이대로라면 내년 KBW는 규모가 더 축소될수도 있습니다.
❤7
방금 속보를 낸 이데일리에 저도 힘을 보태기 위해서 기고문을 냈습니다. 내용은 제가 지난번 삼프로 티비때 이야기 했던 것과 그 궤를 같이합니다. 이재명 대통령은 지난 대선에서 "대한민국을 디지털자산의 허브로 만들어야 한다"는 공약을 내세웠지만, 지금 정부와 규제당국의 방향성을 보면 한국이 허브가 될 가능성은 매우 낮아보입니다. 기고문에는 짤렸지만, 사실 금투세를 폐지하자고 했던 2024년 당시 최상목 부총리의 근거가, 지금 디지털자산 과세를 폐지해야하는 근거와 같습니다. 당시에 최상목 부총리는 안그래도 힘든 주식시장에 세금까지 부과하면 투자심리를 위축시키고, 유예를 하더라도 불확실성을 주기 때문에 폐지를 주장했고, 그 당시 야당의 대표인 이재명 대통령도 이에 동의하여 금투세를 폐지했습니다. 디지털자산 과세도 똑같습니다. 안그래도 지금…
❤51👍4
비단 과세에 대한 것 뿐이겠습니까. 저는 개인적으로 실무자와 이론가는 명백하게 분리해야 한다고 생각하는데, 아직도 우리나라는 경험보다는 타이틀과 이론이 더 중요한 곳이죠. 교수님들 무시하려는 것은 아니지만, 창업 안해보신 경영학 교수님들만 모시고 스타트업 자문단 구성하면 얼마나 잘 될 수 있을까요. 물론 그분들의 이론도 중요하지만, 살아보니 세상은 이론으로 설명할 수 있는 것들이 많지 않더라구요. 삼프로에서 말했지만, 아마 그분들은 저같은 사람이 존재하는지도 모를겁니다. https://www.edaily.co.kr/News/Read?newsId=01174246645546336&mediaCodeNo=257
❤9🖕2
: : [인스티튜션/이슈] 토큰화 주식, 다음 격전지 작성자: 100y - 최근 토큰화 미국채 시장의 규모가 정체되어있는 것과 달리, 토큰화 주식 시장의 경우 질적으로나 양적으로나 가파르게 성장하고 있는 모습을 보여주고 있다. - 전통 주식 인프라, 핀테크, 암호화폐 거래소, 웹3 네이티브 플랫폼 등 할 것 없이 모두가 RWA 산업의 다음 먹거리로 토큰화 주식을 바라보고 있다. 사실 토큰화 주식에는 다양한 방식이 있으며, 이들의 장단점과 포지셔닝을 파악하는 것이 핵심이다. - 본 글에서는 시큐리타이즈, 온도, xStocks, 로빈후드, DTCC, NYSE, 나스닥, 코인베이스 등 서로 다른 배경을 가지고 있는 산업 플레이어들이 어떠한 전략을 펼치고 있는지 분석한다. 📱 X 포스트 🌐 아티클 전문 ✍ PDF FP Website | Te…
❤2
: : 포필러스, 슈퍼팀 코리아 및 솔라나 재단과 "솔라나 서밋(Solana Summit)" 공동 개최 포필러스가 슈퍼팀 코리아, 솔라나 재단과 함께 오는 9월 30일 서울 여의도에서 "솔라나 서밋"을 공동 개최합니다. 이번 행사는 KBW 주간에 개최됩니다. 이번 서밋의 메인 테마는 "인터넷 자본 시장(Internet Capital Market)"입니다. 주식, 채권, 펀드, 통화 등 모든 자산이 하나의 인터넷 기반 원장 위에서 발행, 거래, 결제되는 새로운 금융 시스템을 주제로, 글로벌 기관들의 실제 도입 사례와 한국 시장의 기회를 집중적으로 다룰 예정입니다. 국내 금융기관은 아직 이러한 모델이 기존 자본시장 사업에 어떤 기회를 제공할 수 있는지 이해하는 초기 단계에 있으며, 이번 서밋은 구체적인 사례와 경험을 공유해 이러한 이해를 높…
❤3
Showing the 12 most recent of 40 posts we hold for @catallactic. 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 — 7,450 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.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
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.
Named by 4 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.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
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.
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.
“Steve’s Catallaxy” (@catallactic), 5,222 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/catallactic.
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.