8 measurements spanning 6 days, net +8. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 43,829–43,899 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 17:48
43,866
-12
11 Aug 2026, 17:57
43,878
-13
10 Aug 2026, 17:38
43,891
+53
9 Aug 2026, 14:21
43,838
+1
8 Aug 2026, 11:01
43,837
-11
7 Aug 2026, 12:44
43,848
-10
6 Aug 2026, 16:00
43,858
no change
6 Aug 2026, 15:57
43,858
first reading
Engagement
21 posts held, back to 29 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 17 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
9.30%
avg views ÷ 43,866 subscribers
Avg views / post
4,080
21 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.474%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
21
of 21 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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026
Posts held
21 (29 July 2026 – 12 August 2026)
Views total
85,644
Reactions total
406
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Aug 2026, 20:10 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
≈1,600
Videos
≈1
Links
≈1,290
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.
Video runtime
48s
Average length
48s
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.
Reaction mix
406 reactions across 21 posts, in 16 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 34.5% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
140
34.5%
👍
118
29.1%
🔥
70
17.2%
👀
34
8.37%
👏
21
5.17%
⚡
4
0.985%
😡
3
0.739%
🐳
2
0.493%
👎
2
0.493%
💔
2
0.493%
😴
2
0.493%
🤔
2
0.493%
🤩
2
0.493%
🥱
2
0.493%
🤝
1
0.246%
🤣
1
0.246%
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 21 of the 21 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 406reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 21 most recent posts we hold, published 29 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.
Sellers are tiring but buyers are absent. However, leverage traders have already pulled the trigger on a recovery the data does not yet support.
The market is coiled tightly between converging cost-basis levels on the quietest tape since 2019.
Read it here
Sellers are getting exhausted, but have not reached levels we saw in past $BTC bear markets.
According to the Seller Exhaustion Constant (30d), the historical bottoming signature has not confirmed yet.
We continue to monitor for selling to stall further.
Over the last 90 days the S&P 500 rose 5% while Bitcoin fell 20%. The last 7 days show the same pattern.
Until Bitcoin reclaims strength against the indices, this remains an equity-led tape.
Notably, the NASDAQ is lagging behind other major indices indicating an unfavorable environment for tech-heavy portfolios.
https://glassno.de/4q7edf4
$BTC has stabilised near $65k, with stronger taker demand, robust institutional inflows and easing downside hedging. However, subdued spot liquidity and weak on-chain activity suggest the recovery remains tentative.
Read this week’s Market Pulse👇
$BTC options are showing a cautious but improving setup. Vol is being repriced higher, short-dated fear is fading, calls still dominate OI, and recent premium flow is increasingly constructive. Here’s what the options market is signalling👇
$BTC options have shifted back to a modest vol premium, with IV now ~10% above RV after weeks of realised vol outpacing implied. The market is paying up for uncertainty again, but…
Now live in Market Compass: the #Bitcoin Cycle Position Composite, with heatmap, and snapshot charts – updated daily.
Included in all Advanced and Pro plans.
Quoting @n3ocortex:
As requested: the cycle position composite as a time-series 👇 https://twitter.com/n3ocortex/status/2084300783021944891
Last week, the market sold off into the FOMC and bottomed on decision day: the S&P printed a 7-week low, with equity fear spiking. Four sessions later, we saw new highs. The decision to hold rates steady appears to have been the risk-on signal the market was waiting for
Quoting @glassnode:
Global markets broke to records while Bitcoin stood still. This edition traces that stillness: a theft the market slept through,…
Following the Coldcard firmware exploit, the number of active Bitcoin addresses surged to 0.98M/day, the highest since December 2024.
This is fear-driven on-chain activity. Holders migrating seeds and moving funds to alternative custody reflects an operational security response, not a change in market conviction.
📉 http://glassno.de/btc-active-addresses
Bitcoin's options skew looks bearish – but not because traders are aggressively paying for protection.
While downside IV is cheap, the real extreme is upside IV: an all-time low of 23%.
Nobody is paying for $BTC upside anymore.
Quoting @glassnode:
Global markets broke to records while Bitcoin stood still. This edition traces that stillness: a theft the market slept through, bottom signals arriving through boredom …
OKX moved its trading infrastructure from Hong Kong to Tokyo this week.
Our latency probes caught the switch live:
Hong Kong: ~5ms → ~63ms
Tokyo: ~52ms → ~4ms
A clean swap. If you’re co-located in Hong Kong for @okx, it’s time to move to Tokyo.
👉 http://latency.glassnode.com/cex
Global markets broke to records while Bitcoin stood still. This edition traces that stillness: a theft the market slept through, bottom signals arriving through boredom and an options market priced for nothing while sentiment reacts to everything.
👀6❤2🔥2
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @glassnode. 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
Citation-graph rank — 101,588 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.
Forward network
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.
Mentions
Named by 14 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.
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.
DeFi Million @DeFimillion · 403,220 Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 73 here — alongside 72 others — read 10 August 2026
Bitcoin Industry @bitcoin_industry · 423,532 Telegram ranks this channel #48 of 80 here — alongside 79 others — read 10 August 2026
Wu Blockchain News @wublockchainenglish · 254,073 Telegram ranks this channel #52 of 91 here — alongside 90 others — read 10 August 2026
Whale Alert @whale_alert_io · 304,563 Telegram ranks this channel #54 of 99 here — alongside 98 others — read 10 August 2026
Disclose.tv @disclosetv · 328,133 Telegram ranks this channel #64 of 74 here — alongside 73 others — read 10 August 2026
This channel appears in 5 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Domains linked from posts
3 domainsthis 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.
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.
“Glassnode” (@glassnode), 43,866 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/glassnode.
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.