Channel
@crypto_okop
On this record: Topic · Observations · Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
148,871subscribers
-972 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 100,000–316,228.
| Telegram ID | -1002005771264 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @crypto_okop |
| Description | Возможно я что-то знаю, авторский канал про криптовалюту https://t.me/+uM4ikBbW3sxlY2E0 @w0rm_bLue Не финансовые рекомендации, вся крипта это галимый скам, всё что здесь написано исключительно мнение автора Немного юмора, скандалов и интриг |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 30 April 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 | 9 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/crypto_okop |
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 9 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 52% 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. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| @gift_mirror/13365 Aug 2026, 16:50 UTC | @crypto_okop/24625 · this entry5 Aug 2026, 16:50 UTC | 1.00 | under a minute |
| @crypto_okop/24649 · this entry7 Aug 2026, 05:04 UTC | @gift_mirror/13437 Aug 2026, 05:05 UTC | 1.00 | under a minute |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @gift_mirror | 5 (5/5 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 1.00 | under a minute | @gift_mirror (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 1 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 16 comparable posts for this entry, running 4 August 2026 to 8 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 2, the earliest publisher we hold is @gift_mirror. 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 1 other registered channel, 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, 04:18 | 148,871 | -108 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 04:28 | 148,979 | -100 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 04:54 | 149,079 | -276 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 03:11 | 149,355 | -115 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 04:57 | 149,470 | -196 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 08:05 | 149,666 | -162 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 06:31 | 149,828 | -15 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 01:31 | 149,843 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 01:21 | 149,843 | first reading |
94 posts held, back to 4 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 17 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 94 (4 August 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 520,170 |
| Reactions total | 15,505 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 18:09 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 12 August 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.
Measured directly from 6 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.
14,519 reactions across 74 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 77.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🤡 | 11,242 | 77.4% | |
| 🤣 | 2,048 | 14.1% | |
| 👍 | 532 | 3.66% | |
| 💯 | 317 | 2.18% | |
| 🔥 | 182 | 1.25% | |
| 🤔 | 150 | 1.03% | |
| 🐳 | 48 | 0.331% |
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 94 of the 94 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 15,505reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 94 most recent posts we hold, published 4 August 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.
У Gram ситуация сложная из за высокого % в стейкинге Тот же Ton Strategy получает около 3 млн токенов в месяц которые без каких либо проблем может бесконечно лить в рынок, также и другие участники рынка В общем банальная математика, объем на продажу огромный, а спроса нет. Да и инвестор не дурак кормить толпу которая будет лить об него токены. В общем неизвестно что будет дальше, но экосистема максимально мертвая
💯20🤣11🤡4🔥3
Ton возвращает быстрые транзакции обновления «Sub Second» 17 Августа, так как уверены что новый кошелек в Telegram создаст всплеск большой активности, также разработчики утверждают что все баги исправлены и повторных падении или замедлении быть не должно🤣
🤣29🤡7🐳2🔥2
Google не может определить что он Google
🤣31🤡2
Пользователь заплатил комиссию в размере 1.6 BTC, случайно или нет — неизвестно Но зачастую такие схемы попадают под «нелепое отмывание денег через подконтрольные майнинг пулы»
🤣28🤡10
О наконец-то, теперь узнаем настоящее количество юзеров в Telegram
🤡28🔥7
Знаете почему я за Путина, без прикола Я когда жил в 90е помню это время, когда родители скитались туда сюда меж город в покупке шмотья, затем перепродажа на рынке, помню как все было менее доступно, всякие ваши сникерсы и тд это был раритет. Все эти старые и древние дома, бараки и тд. Помню как у многих с работой были напряги, многие шли на преступление, кто то формировал банды для быстрой наживы, а страдали обычн…
🤡10,200👍111🔥38💯37🤣7🤔2
Там уже и Иисуса приплели,который по воде ходил, но в принципе всё гуглится за пару секунд
🤡18
NASA - потеря гравитации на 7 секунд 12 августа — невозможное событие Издание напомнило, что конспирологическая теория активно распространяется с декабря 2025 года. Ее родоначальником стал пользователь mr_danya_of. Он утверждал, что в NASA были зафиксированы гравитационные волны от столкновения двух черных дыр, которые затронут Землю 12 августа, и на 7,3 секунды нейтрализуют гравитацию.
🤡23🤣21
Таганский суд Москвы оштрафовал Telegram на 14,6 млн рублей и Google на 7,6 млн рублей Мессенджеру досталось за публикацию ответов на ЕГЭ и отказ удалить информацию о зацеперах и экстремистских организациях, а стору — за неудаление запрещенного в РФ контента. Давно не штрафовали
🤡21👍11🤣8
Как хорошо когда есть ИИ, которые умеет читать новостные сводки и определять кто воздухан 🤣
🤡15👍6💯3
Телеграм не может себе позволить более 100$ на конкурсы Кстати, что там с кубками то? История утихла так и не начавшись 🤷♂️
🤣31👍12🤡3💯2
Илон Маск заявил, что "у нас появятся летающие автомобили". Экономия средств на реконструкции дорог, а также их износа, вопрос, что там по светофорам в небе?
🤡9🔥6👍1
Showing the 12 most recent of 94 posts we hold for @crypto_okop. 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 — 321,525 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.
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 9 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.
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.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 12 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.
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.
This channel appears in 28 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.
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.
“🇷🇺 The Club 100 - Криптовалютый окоп, нейро полигон, геймерская усадьба, технический момент” (@crypto_okop), 148,871 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/crypto_okop.
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.