🚨 BREAKING AI NEWS OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra can now tell you exactly where you screwed up your IKEA shelf 🔗 Read full story — The Decoder React with 🔥 if this is huge! #breaking #AI #AGI #artificialintelligence #tech 📡 @cryptoAIAGI News | Chrono | 𝕏 takes

Channel
Crypto AI/AGI/ASI
@cryptoAIAGI
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · View velocity · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Polls · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Domains linked from posts · Cite this entry
1,042,282subscribers
-87,880 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among the largest entries.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1002215358470 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @cryptoAIAGI |
| Description | This channel is about Artificial Inteligence and Crypto. AI is taking over the world. |
| Created | Between 1 June 2024 and 30 September 2024 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 26 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 36 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 26 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/cryptoAIAGI |
Topic
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 8 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 93% 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.
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 26 Sept 2026, 13:38 | 1,042,282 | -10,016 |
| 19 Sept 2026, 12:36 | 1,052,298 | -4,108 |
| 17 Sept 2026, 04:17 | 1,056,406 | -3,719 |
| 15 Sept 2026, 01:41 | 1,060,125 | -2,766 |
| 13 Sept 2026, 14:00 | 1,062,891 | -3,995 |
| 11 Sept 2026, 16:41 | 1,066,886 | -3,898 |
| 9 Sept 2026, 02:57 | 1,070,784 | -5,724 |
| 5 Sept 2026, 19:39 | 1,076,508 | -4,065 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 21:14 | 1,080,573 | -2,118 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 13:35 | 1,082,691 | -2,032 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 15:33 | 1,084,723 | -2,029 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 12:38 | 1,086,752 | -1,878 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 13:07 | 1,088,630 | -1,856 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 11:24 | 1,090,486 | -1,763 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 10:17 | 1,092,249 | -1,932 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 09:33 | 1,094,181 | -1,573 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 07:17 | 1,095,754 | -1,501 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 07:23 | 1,097,255 | -1,473 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 06:08 | 1,098,728 | -3,540 |
| 22 Aug 2026, 10:58 | 1,102,268 | first reading |
Engagement
212 posts held, back to 2 August 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 106 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 0.038%
- avg views ÷ 1,042,282 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 394
- 117 posts measured
- Reaction rate
- 0.314%
- reactions ÷ views · ER floor
- Posts in window
- 117
- of 212 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 54 of 117 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 26 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 212 (2 August 2026 – 26 September 2026) |
| Views total | 46,076 |
| Reactions total | 70 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 27 Sept 2026, 04:41 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.
What this channel posts
- Photos
- ≈1,420
- Videos
- ≈195
- Links
- ≈388
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 26 September 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
View velocity
How fast this channel’s own posts pick up views, from re-reading them repeatedly in the hours and days after they were published rather than the single reading most entries on this register get. Coverage is early and only a small minority of channels hold it at all — a gap in this section means the post has not been re-read again yet, not that nothing happened.
Computed from 96 of this channel’s own posts over the last 30 days (3 of the 24-hour readings behind this are interpolated, not measured directly): across 94 of this channel’s own posts with a clear reading, a typical one reaches half of its last-observed view count within 16 hours of being posted; a typical post has already reached 22.9% of its 24-hour view count within the first hour, and 54.5% within the first six; the median 24-hour reach across those posts is 254 views — 0.024% of this channel’s own subscriber count (90th percentile 321).
| Post | Readings | Latest reading | Curve | 24h reach | Half of last-observed views by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| /300826 Sept 2026, 20:13 UTC | 102 minutes – 8.5 hours old | 147 viewsno reaction reading | 60 minutes: 74 → 3.0 hours: 106 → 6.0 hours: 123still climbing at last reading | not yet at 24h | 61 minutesprovisional — final view count still climbing |
| /300726 Sept 2026, 19:01 UTC | 129 minutes – 9.7 hours old | 178 viewsno reaction reading | 60 minutes: 50 interp. → 3.0 hours: 125 → 6.0 hours: 150still climbing at last reading | not yet at 24h | 1.8 hoursprovisional — final view count still climbing |
| /300625 Sept 2026, 19:12 UTC | 3863 minutes – 33 hours old | 376 viewsno reaction reading | 60 minutes: 67 → 3.0 hours: 107 interp. → 6.0 hours: 124 → 12 hours: 184 → 24 hours: 293still climbing at last reading | 293measured | 12 hours |
| /300525 Sept 2026, 08:29 UTC | 5111 minutes – 44 hours old | 423 viewsno reaction reading | 60 minutes: 48 interp. → 3.0 hours: 92 interp. → 6.0 hours: 116 → 12 hours: 203 → 24 hours: 299still climbing at last reading | 299measured | 12 hours |
| /300125 Sept 2026, 08:29 UTC | 4512 minutes – 44 hours old | 167 viewsno reaction reading | 60 minutes: 29 interp. → 3.0 hours: 54 interp. → 6.0 hours: 66 → 12 hours: 98 → 24 hours: 124still climbing at last reading | 124measured | 10 hours |
| /300425 Sept 2026, 08:29 UTC | 4912 minutes – 44 hours old | 345 viewsno reaction reading | 60 minutes: 45 interp. → 3.0 hours: 85 interp. → 6.0 hours: 105 → 12 hours: 181 → 24 hours: 256still climbing at last reading | 256measured | 12 hours |
| /300024 Sept 2026, 19:08 UTC | 5853 minutes – 2 days old | 311 views1 reaction | 60 minutes: 62 interp. → 3.0 hours: 103 → 6.0 hours: 130 → 12 hours: 177 → 24 hours: 242 → 2 days: 287still climbing at last reading | 242measured | 10 hours |
| /299924 Sept 2026, 18:19 UTC | 5314 minutes – 2 days old | 292 views1 reaction | 60 minutes: 58 interp. → 3.0 hours: 112 → 6.0 hours: 133 → 12 hours: 171 → 24 hours: 231 → 2 days: 276still climbing at last reading | 231measured | 8.1 hours |
Curve is every standard checkpoint we hold a reading for (+1h, +3h, +6h, +12h, +24h, +48h, +7d after posting) — measured where a real reading landed close enough to that age, interpolated where it did not but readings on both sides let one be worked out between them. Nothing is ever extrapolated past the last real reading. Latest reading is the newest view and reaction count we hold for the post, side by side, so a gap between how views and reactions moved is visible without following it into the Observations section above. 24h reach is that one checkpoint on its own, labelled the same way. Half of last-observed views is the age at which a post’s view count crossed half of the highest figure we have read for it so far — an upper bound when the very first reading was already past half (we cannot see the actual crossing), and biased low while the post is still climbing, since “half of final” is dividing by a number that has not finished growing yet. Both caveats are printed inline wherever they apply, never silently dropped.
Reaction mix
104 reactions across 80 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 37.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 39 | 37.5% | |
| ❤ | 35 | 33.7% | |
| 🔥 | 25 | 24.0% | |
| 👏 | 3 | 2.88% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 1.92% |
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 86 of the 212 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 105 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 212 most recent posts we hold, published 2 August 2026 to 26 September 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
- 3
- across the posts below
- Posts paid on
- 3
- of 212 we hold a reading for · 1%
- Most on one post
- 1
- single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @cryptoAIAGI. 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 212 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 2 August 2026 to 26 September 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.
Recent posts
🪵 The oracle that comes back to check on you. Most readings end when the screen does. This one doesn't. Ask @Ifapredictionbot anything — money, love, work, the road ahead — and the chain answers with one ẹbọ: a single thing to do, and a day it must be done by. Then it tells you when the matter turns. On that day, it comes back and asks whether it did. Your yes or no goes on your own record — the same way the oracl…
🚨 BREAKING AI NEWS Introducing GPT-6 Sol and Luna - OpenAI 🔗 Read full story — Google News AI React with 🔥 if this is huge! #breaking #AI #AGI #artificialintelligence #tech 📡 @cryptoAIAGI News | Chrono | 𝕏 takes
Which myth from 'Why Most AI Agents Will Fail' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ AI agents can fully replace human traders0%
- 2️⃣ Autonomous agents don't need human oversight0%
- 3️⃣ More autonomy = better performance0%
- 5️⃣ Agent frameworks are all equally capable0%
Shares as published, totalling 0%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Photo, posted without a caption
🔍 MYTH BUSTER: Why Most AI Agents Will Fail Stop falling for the hype. Here's what the AI agent revolution is actually missing. ❌ MYTH: AI agents can fully replace human traders ✅ REALITY: The best-performing crypto trading operations run AI-assisted models, not AI-only ones. A 2024 survey of institutional traders found that 73% who deployed pure autonomous agents suffered portfolio drawdowns exceeding 20% within …
🔮 It said Israel would close its airspace — before it happened. It also said Alcaraz would win the US Open. He didn't. Both calls are still on the board at @Ifapredictionbot, because every cast on a real world event is written down before the outcome and graded by what actually happens.Running record: 22 right · 21 wrong. No deleted misses. No "we told you so" without the receipts. Check it yourself: /world And the…
👍1
🚨 BREAKING AI NEWS Google launches Gemini 3.8 Flash TTS voice models 🔗 Read full story — AI News React with 🔥 if this is huge! #breaking #AI #AGI #artificialintelligence #tech 📡 @cryptoAIAGI News | Chrono | 𝕏 takes
🔥1
Which myth from 'Why Most AI Agents Will Fail' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ AI agents can fully replace human traders43%
- 2️⃣ Autonomous agents don't need human oversight14%
- 3️⃣ More autonomy = better performance14%
- 4️⃣ AI agents understand market context like humans14%
- 5️⃣ Agent frameworks are all equally capable14%
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
❤2
Photo, posted without a caption
🔥1
🔍 MYTH BUSTER: Why Most AI Agents Will Fail Stop falling for the hype. Most AI agents launching this cycle will be dead code by 2026. Here's why — and what actually matters. ❌ MYTH 1: AI agents can fully replace human traders ✅ REALITY: The 2024 "AI trader" startups that claimed 50%+ monthly returns? None are managing significant AUM anymore. Reason: markets punish mechanical patterns instantly. The traders who a…
❤2👍1
🚨 BREAKING AI NEWS Bernie Sanders proposes banning ‘superintelligence’ and putting violators in prison 🔗 Read full story — The Verge AI React with 🔥 if this is huge! #breaking #AI #AGI #artificialintelligence #tech 📡 @cryptoAIAGI News | Chrono | 𝕏 takes
👍1
Showing the 12 most recent of 212 posts we hold for @cryptoAIAGI. 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.
Polls
The 6 most recent of 53 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Which myth from 'Why Most AI Agents Will Fail' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ AI agents can fully replace human traders0%
- 2️⃣ Autonomous agents don't need human oversight0%
- 3️⃣ More autonomy = better performance0%
- 5️⃣ Agent frameworks are all equally capable0%
Shares as published, totalling 0%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Which myth from 'Why Most AI Agents Will Fail' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ AI agents can fully replace human traders43%
- 2️⃣ Autonomous agents don't need human oversight14%
- 3️⃣ More autonomy = better performance14%
- 4️⃣ AI agents understand market context like humans14%
- 5️⃣ Agent frameworks are all equally capable14%
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Which myth from 'The Real Truth About AI Compute & Chip Wars' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ NVIDIA will dominate AI chips forever50%
- 2️⃣ More GPUs always means better AI models50%
- 3️⃣ Custom AI chips will make GPUs obsolete0%
- 4️⃣ Cloud AI is always cheaper than running locally0%
- 5️⃣ The chip shortage is over and won't return0%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Which myth from 'The Truth About AI Jobs Nobody Tells You' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ AI will eliminate most white-collar jobs within 5 years75%
- 2️⃣ Learning to prompt is all you need for an AI career25%
- 3️⃣ AI engineers don't need to understand math0%
- 4️⃣ AI will only replace low-skill jobs0%
- 5️⃣ Remote AI jobs pay the same everywhere globally0%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Which myth from '5 Things People Get Wrong About GPT & LLMs' surprised you most?
- 1️⃣ LLMs are just fancy autocomplete with no real use50%
- 2️⃣ ChatGPT and Claude have access to real-time data0%
- 3️⃣ AI models remember your previous conversations forever25%
- 4️⃣ Open-source models are always less capable25%
- 5️⃣ LLMs will plateau and stop improving0%
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Which myth from '5 AI Safety Myths That Are Dangerously Wrong' surprised you most?
- 2️⃣ Open-sourcing all AI models makes everything safer0%
- 3️⃣ We can just 'pull the plug' if AI goes wrong0%
- 4️⃣ AI alignment is a solved problem0%
- 5️⃣ Only AGI poses real safety risks, not current AI0%
Shares as published, totalling 0%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 212 most recent posts we hold, published 2 August 2026 to 26 September 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Mentions
Named by 2 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.
Channels Telegram recommends alongside this one
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
@watbird · 1,476,557#1
@currentcryptonewsdaily · 1,025,345#2
@CryptoMemeFoundation · 1,836,756#3
@cryptolifebro · 1,047,206#4
@learn2earnings · 1,824,340#5
@NewsPlayToEarn · 2,296,166#6
@sergeisergienkoen · 3,099,972#7
@be_the_firsttt · 1,299,105#8
@taptoearninsider · 1,001,501#9
@polyrangercom · 1,782,465#10
@theyescoin · 5,634,397#11
@blumcrypto · 14,188,780#12
@tea_solmeme · 1,176,954#13
@trendingapps · 3,784,156#14
@hamster_kombat · 20,830,171#15
@seedupdates · 8,102,878#16
@dailyscan_en · 993,975#17
@fx_holding_community · 5,999,312#18
@corn_battles · 1,045,929#19
@boomloudcoin · 1,653,140#20
@nomis_protocol · 1,536,662#21
@notcoin · 8,552,225#22
@hexnio · 1,998,607#23
@CEXIO_Announcements · 2,473,393#24
@Holdcoin_Channel · 2,182,616#25
@smpl_app · 1,606,691#26
@dotcoincommunity · 3,940,724#27
@richbeaknewss · 659,792#28
@therealyescoin · 2,089,882#29
@catapult_extreme · 8,398,685#30
@catizenann · 3,550,802#31
@laborx · 1,006,192#32
@CRYPTO_jokker · 2,027,438#33
@architecton_tech · 2,014,381#34
@gram · 6,641,039#35
@EraOfExplorers · 715,471#36
@boopupdates · 1,294,036#37
@drop_cryptogo · 1,428,234#38
@catgoldminerann · 895,679#39
@tonstationgames · 3,193,102#40
@money · 2,932,436#41
@theTapCoins · 2,888,723#42
@Bitget_Wallet_Announcement · 3,968,612#43
@Cats_housewtf · 7,850,625#44
@gameechannel · 1,882,229#45
@tonbox · 491,515#46
@matchain_fam · 1,876,753#47
@monorixofficial · 1,320,600#48
@GTM_TON · 839,919#49
@degen_Crypto_Hub · 1,023,714#50
@WagmiHub_News · 1,074,306#51
@coinpost · 240,774#52
@amazingworldtravel · 1,020,986#53
@revheadcrypto · 831,642#54
@TimeFarmChannel · 5,234,054#55
@sportscryptoinsider · 826,931#56
@dogs · 7,065,215#57
@watersolmeme · 1,140,826#58
@ChronotechNEWS · 1,012,471#59
@hayzonn · 2,830,164#60
@Sport_HUB_football · 1,350,223#61
@token_1win · 2,980,801#62
@the_vertus · 2,149,775#63
@Crypto_Woolf · 2,171,582#64
@timecoinsol · 687,903#65
@vestirussia · 975,954#66
@metazoneofficial · 557,774#67
@hotonnear · 4,631,154#68
@cosmobear_io · 754,323#69
@CloutCoinSol · 965,464#70
@TaskNChannel · 912,667#71
@biznest0n · 665,957#72
@rockyrabbitio · 3,502,824#73
@notboredpuppies_news · 1,138,376#74
@tomarket_ai · 6,580,713#75
@hash_cats · 2,064,245#76
@game_talks · 2,836#77
@non_political_news · 3,696#78
@innovation_station · 2,186#79
@crypto_hub_crypto_hub · 2,346#80
@babydogecoin · 1,019,704#81
@mediarussia · 1,694,028#82
@tap_sport_official · 561,448#83
@financial_reality · 3,302#84
@richbeaknews · 579,608#85
@pixelverse_xyz · 3,112,277#86
@CryptoEraEng · 171,466#87
@avagoldcoin · 1,753,173#88
@onus_globalchannel · 1,650,302#89
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 8 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
@amazingworldtravel · 1,020,986
Telegram ranks this channel #4 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 8 August 2026
@cryptolifebro · 1,047,206
Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 89 here — alongside 88 others — read 8 August 2026
@sportscryptoinsider · 826,931
Telegram ranks this channel #21 of 89 here — alongside 88 others — read 8 August 2026
@the_cryptospy · 127,795
Telegram ranks this channel #23 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 13 August 2026
@revheadcrypto · 831,642
Telegram ranks this channel #23 of 89 here — alongside 88 others — read 8 August 2026
@Crypto_Pulse_Nigeria · 915,838
Telegram ranks this channel #23 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 8 August 2026
@laborx · 1,006,192
Telegram ranks this channel #23 of 91 here — alongside 90 others — read 8 August 2026
@INSIDERR_POLITIC · 1,774,773
Telegram ranks this channel #23 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 8 August 2026
@taptoearninsider · 1,001,501
Telegram ranks this channel #29 of 89 here — alongside 88 others — read 8 August 2026
@INSIDER_UK_NEWS · 1,185,207
Telegram ranks this channel #30 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 8 August 2026
@currentcryptonewsdaily · 1,025,345
Telegram ranks this channel #31 of 91 here — alongside 90 others — read 8 August 2026
@cryptopbm · 197,498
Telegram ranks this channel #32 of 86 here — alongside 85 others — read 11 August 2026
@thecrypto_mason · 163,539
Telegram ranks this channel #35 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 12 August 2026
@be_the_firsttt · 1,299,105
Telegram ranks this channel #35 of 89 here — alongside 88 others — read 8 August 2026
@CryptoMemeFoundation · 1,836,756
Telegram ranks this channel #36 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 7 August 2026
@Faded_Person · 60,042
Telegram ranks this channel #38 of 64 here — alongside 63 others — read 22 August 2026
@NewsPlayToEarn · 2,296,166
Telegram ranks this channel #40 of 88 here — alongside 87 others — read 7 August 2026
@musicnaightlight · 94,567
Telegram ranks this channel #41 of 65 here — alongside 64 others — read 17 August 2026
@Naija_Sports · 861,148
Telegram ranks this channel #41 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 8 August 2026
@CRYPTO_insider_deutscher · 1,144,637
Telegram ranks this channel #41 of 87 here — alongside 86 others — read 8 August 2026
@INSIDER_USA_NEWS · 1,376,326
Telegram ranks this channel #42 of 92 here — alongside 91 others — read 8 August 2026
@defi_dive · 155,433
Telegram ranks this channel #44 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 13 August 2026
@drop_cryptogo · 1,428,234
Telegram ranks this channel #44 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 8 August 2026
@learn2earnings · 1,824,340
Telegram ranks this channel #44 of 90 here — alongside 89 others — read 7 August 2026
This channel appears in 85 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Domains linked from posts
One domain this channel’s own posts have linked to, measured by scanning the post bodies themselves — not the channel’s description, which is the separate Declared links section below when this entry has one. Appearing here is not a claim about who runs the linked site or why the channel linked to it; an advertisement, a news citation and a malicious link all leave the same kind of row.
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 26 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Crypto AI/AGI/ASI” (@cryptoAIAGI), 1,042,282 subscribers as measured 26 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cryptoAIAGI.
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.