Channel
@cryptosog
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Cite this entry
4,841subscribers
-90 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002100996196 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @cryptosog |
| Created | Between 1 November 2023 and 31 May 2024 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 18 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 14 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 18 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/cryptosog |
Crypto & trading — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 13 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 100% 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.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 18 Sept 2026, 11:41 | 4,841 | -9 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 09:19 | 4,850 | -14 |
| 11 Sept 2026, 03:18 | 4,864 | -12 |
| 5 Sept 2026, 21:19 | 4,876 | -17 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 17:27 | 4,893 | +7 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 15:05 | 4,886 | -4 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 16:13 | 4,890 | +25 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 10:12 | 4,865 | -11 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 19:08 | 4,876 | -11 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 22:16 | 4,887 | -24 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 14:28 | 4,911 | -12 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 06:41 | 4,923 | -8 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 12:21 | 4,931 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 12:17 | 4,931 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 26 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 7 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 1 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
117 reactions across 17 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 45.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 53 | 45.3% | |
| ❤ | 49 | 41.9% | |
| 😎 | 7 | 5.98% | |
| 🤝 | 5 | 4.27% | |
| 👌 | 1 | 0.855% | |
| 😘 | 1 | 0.855% | |
| 😢 | 1 | 0.855% |
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 17 of the 20 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 117 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 26 July 2026 to 1 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.
🧠 EigenLayer: Restaking the Risk EigenLayer positions itself as a capital efficiency boon, enabling Ethereum validators to "restake" their ETH to secure additional protocols, known as Actively Validated Services (AVSs). This isn't newfound yield; it's a re-hypothecation of trust, extending Ethereum's cryptoeconomic security perimeter to external systems. The core mechanism allows stakers to opt into securing these …
👍13❤6👌1😢1
⚙️ MEV: The Silent Tax Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) isn't some abstract concept; it's the profit miners/validators extract by arbitrarily ordering, censoring, or inserting transactions within blocks. Think arbitrage, liquidations, and sandwich attacks – these aren't just network inefficiencies, they're direct, often unseen, taxes on users. The game is simple: exploit predictable on-chain actions. Proposer-Builde…
👍10🤝3😎2❤1
💸 MEV: The Invisible Hand MEV, or Maximal Extractable Value, isn't a hypothetical threat; it's a fundamental economic reality. It's the profit validators and block producers extract by reordering, inserting, or censoring transactions within a block. This isn't theoretical; it's active exploitation. Searchers deploy bots for arbitrage, liquidations, and front-running, bidding up gas to secure strategic transaction i…
❤7🤝2
🚨 H1 2026 Hack Post-Mortem: OpSec, Not Code Another half-year, another billion-dollar bloodbath. H1 2026 saw over $1.1B drained across a record 212 exploits. But here’s the kicker: 74% of these losses weren't smart contract bugs. They were operational security failures – compromised keys, signing infrastructure, privileged access. This isn't about complex Solidity vulnerabilities anymore; it's about basic infosec n…
❤5
🚨 BREAKING: Bad Entropy Bites Hard Another day, another reminder that fundamental crypto security remains a joke. Over 594 BTC (~$38M) was recently swept from 500 single-sig addresses. This follows the 'Ill Bloom' vulnerability, which has already drained $5M+ since May. The root cause? Flawed private key generation. We're talking "weak private keys generated at birth" due to insufficient entropy. Coldcard's Mk3 fir…
🚨 RWA Push: Institutional vs. Reality Lava Network's €500M energy tokenization and Finloop's FUIDL on Bybit signal a persistent institutional drive into Real World Assets. The narrative of bringing "real world" value on-chain continues, predominantly for the deep-pocketed. Finloop's "Web5" (Web2+Web3) platform, leveraging an AAA-rated USD liquidity fund, showcases how traditional finance is packaging tokenized debt…
👍7
⛓️ MEV: The Unseen Tax Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) isn't a bug; it's a fundamental feature of decentralized systems with transparent transaction ordering. Validators, or "searchers" paying them off-chain, leverage this power to reorder, insert, or censor transactions within a block for profit. This isn't theoretical; it's a consistent economic reality. Common MEV strategies include arbitrage between DEXs, liqui…
❤4😘1
🚨 Bridge Security: Another Day, Another Drain AFX Trade and Verus bridges recently lost over $31M. AFX fell to compromised validator keys, a familiar operational security failure. Verus, meanwhile, was hit by a recycled smart contract bug, exploiting unbacked payouts. This isn't groundbreaking; it's a systemic failure. Bridges remain the weakest link, exposing fundamental security trade-offs. Whether it's opsec neg…
👍3❤1
🚨 Security & Survivability Check H1 2026 data is grim. Blockaid reports over $1 billion lost to hacks, marking the 'most-hacked half-year on record' by incident count. Ethereum and Solana protocols bore the brunt, losing $332M and $326M respectively. This isn't just opportunistic attacks; it highlights critical vulnerabilities in foundational smart contract code and signer infrastructure. Compounding this, 101 cryp…
🚨 Bridge Security: Same Old Story Another week, another multi-million dollar DeFi exploit. AFX Trade's Arbitrum bridge lost $24.2M, not due to smart contract flaws, but compromised validator keys. VerusCoin saw $7.5M vanish from a reused, known vulnerability. These aren't sophisticated new attack vectors. This is basic operational security failure. Centralized validator sets for bridges create single points of fail…
🚨 Regulatory Limbo Continues: CLARITY Act Delay. The Senate again punted on the CLARITY Act, pushing any vote past recess. This legislative paralysis fuels current market weakness: BTC retesting $63k, Fear & Greed at 29. This isn't theater; it's a choke point for Web3 innovation. While nations like Russia set clear licensing and the SEC defines its 2026 agenda, the US remains gridlocked. Builders and VCs needing cer…
❤5
🚨 IP Moats Deepen: Circle Buys IBM Blockchain Patents Circle's acquisition of IBM's extensive blockchain patent portfolio—over 680 patent families and nearly 1,000 issued patents—is a significant play. This isn't just about USDC; it's about owning foundational layers for future "internet-native" finance. Expect increased IP litigation risk for competitors and a stronger moat for Circle's Arc blockchain and payment …
❤4
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @cryptosog. 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.
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 18 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Cryptosog” (@cryptosog), 4,841 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cryptosog.
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.