Channel
@chatujemy
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
881subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002978226694 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @chatujemy |
| Description | 💬 pierwsza polska agencja chatterska of + fansly + fanvue. aktualnie generujemy ponad $250k / msc z OFa w PL. maksymalizujemy zyski pisząc, ty skupiasz się na trafficu. 📲 kontakt: @przychlast 📈 wyniki: @chatujemywyniki |
| Created | Between 1 August 2025 and 31 October 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 8 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| On Telegram | t.me/chatujemy |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Aug 2026, 01:06 | 881 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 12:33 | 881 | first reading |
16 posts held, back to 22 May 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.
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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 6 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 16 (22 May 2026 – 6 August 2026) |
| Views total | 1,806 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 8 Aug 2026, 01:06 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.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 8 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
Measured directly from 5 videos 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.
💥 3x wzrost w pierwszy miesiąc w czerwcu poprzednia ekipa chattingowa wykręciła na tym koncie $2,464. wystarczyło 30 dni z naszym chattingiem, żeby podbić wynik ponad 3-krotnie. 🤔 ile pieniędzy tracisz co miesiąc? to najlepiej pokazuje, ile pieniędzy tracisz, pracując ze słabym zespołem. ruch to tylko połowa sukcesu. cała magia i duże liczby zaczynają się w wiadomościach prywatnych. jeśli czujesz, że twoje konto s…
niezmiennie od 4 miesięcy 🤭
🔥 ltv $11 na free subie większość profili na darmowym subie przepala swój ruch. cieszą się z nowych subskrybentów, ale kiedy przychodzi do podliczenia miesiąca, okazuje się, że średnio jeden fan zostawia u nich $3–$5. 💡 my mamy trochę lepsze wyniki. na jednym z naszych kont zamknęliśmy ostatnie 30 dni z wynikiem $15,135 przy zaledwie 1,361 darmowych subskrybentach. po podliczeniu daje to $11,12 ltv z każdego jedne…
‼️ działamy też na kompletnie świeżych kontach modelka przejęta od zera, klient zaczął wrzucać traffic, a my tego samego dnia przejęliśmy chatting. 💸 efekt po 8 dniach? — $4,800 łącznie — $500 z subskrypcji — $4,300 z chattingu ratio 1:8.5 na koncie, które istnieje od tygodnia. 📈 nasza estymacja? jeżeli managerowie utrzymają obecny poziom pozyskiwania subów, konto powinno zarobić ok. $18,000 w pierwszym miesiącu …
📊 garść statystyk z ostatnich 30d postanowiliśmy sprawdzić nasze statystyki w infloww i podzielić się z wami niektórymi z nich... 💬 508,845 wiadomości wysłanych to ok. 17,500 wiadomości dziennie, wiadomość co 5 sekund, 24/7. ⏰ 2,715 przepracowanych godzin to jakby 17 osób pracowało na pełen etat przez cały miesiąc. ✍️ 27,604,577 znaków napisanych to ponad 55 napisanych książek... w jeden miesiąc. 👥 52,935 fanów,…
📅 kolejny manager i kolejne wyniki kolejne 2 modelki zonboardowane na początku czerwca (4 czerwca). • konto 1: $4,020.80 (maj) → $9,053.84 (czerwiec) - 2.25x wzrost • konto 2: $2,240.64 (maj) → $10,165.44 (czerwiec) - 4.54x wzrost • łącznie: $6,261.44 → $19,219.28 😈 to nie kwestia szczęścia... za każdym razem ten sam wzorzec: słaby chatting, a potem 3x wzrost po naszym wejściu. razem na tych dwóch kontach to $12,…
📅 zonboardowaliśmy 2 modelki klienta 1 czerwca. zaczęliśmy chatting na świeżo, pierwszego dnia miesiąca. 📊 poniżej wzrost zarobków na obu kontach, który wygenerowaliśmy w jeden miesiąc. • konto 1: $2,019 (maj) → $5,187 (czerwiec) - 2.6x wzrost • konto 2: $4,946 (maj) → $17,289 (czerwiec) - 3.5x wzrost • łącznie: $6,966 → $22,476 w jeden miesiąc. 🚀 razem to 3.2x wzrost na obu kontach nie zmieniliśmy absolutnie nic,…
nic nowego... 🤪
🤪 manager był zadowolony z wyników... my jednak, szybko wyprowadziliśmy go z błędu. konto generowało $100-$500 dziennie. 25 czerwca przejęliśmy chatting. od tamtego momentu nie schodzimy poniżej $1,000 dziennie. 📈 to ponad 3x wzrost... i to licząc od najlepszych dni przed nami.
$2.5k od nowego suba na dobry dzień... 🫠
🔥 ltv $13,5 na free subie? za granicą uznaje się, że jeśli z jednego subskrybenta na darmowym profilu zarabiasz średnio $5, to jest to dobry wynik. 💸 my mamy trochę inne standardy... — 877 free subów na profilu, — $11,920 łącznego zarobku, każdy sub zostawia u nas średnio $13,59. podczas gdy inni cieszą się z dobrych $5, my potrajamy te wyniki... 🤪
📈 wzrost o 70% w jeden miesiąc wiele osób myśli, że każda agencja chatterska działa tak samo. powyższy screen idealnie pokazuje, jak ogromną różnicę robią odpowiedni ludzie na czacie. 📲 w maju przejęliśmy chatting po poprzedniej ekipie. ruch na koncie był dokładnie ten sam, a modelka ani manager nie musieli robić nic dodatkowego. wprowadziliśmy po prostu nasz system prowadzenia rozmów i domykania sprzedaży. 💸 efek…
Showing the 12 most recent of 16 posts we hold for @chatujemy. 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 — 370,414 of 1,481,217entries 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.
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 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.
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 8 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“@chatujemy” (@chatujemy), 881 subscribers as measured 8 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/chatujemy.
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.