In our new report with NOWPayments, we look at how stablecoins are used for payments. We deep dive into how USDT and USDC move on-chain and provide some practical guidance to merchants that accept stablecoin payments. Read the full report 👈
👍11❤7🔥5

Channel
@glassnode
On this record: Topic · Observations · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Domains linked from posts · Cite this entry
43,604subscribers
-254 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001370726192 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @glassnode |
| Description | Institutional Data and Market Intelligence for Digital Assets. https://studio.glassnode.com/ |
| Created | 13 September 2018 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 November 2026 |
| Measurements held | 63 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 November 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/glassnode |
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 9 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 98% 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 the other topics.
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 in near-verbatim form on 4 other registered channels. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| @glassnode/1879 · this entry17 Aug 2026, 05:01 UTC | @DigitalChartist/784217 Aug 2026, 10:25 UTC | 1.00 | 5.4 hours |
| @glassnode/1880 · this entry17 Aug 2026, 09:01 UTC | @DigitalChartist/784717 Aug 2026, 10:28 UTC | 1.00 | 87 minutes |
| @glassnode/1889 · this entry18 Aug 2026, 16:00 UTC | @DigitalChartist/787519 Aug 2026, 13:29 UTC | 1.00 | 21 hours |
| @glassnode/1900 · this entry21 Aug 2026, 15:01 UTC | @DigitalChartist/790221 Aug 2026, 17:33 UTC | 1.00 | 2.5 hours |
| @glassnode/2078 · this entry2 Nov 2026, 14:01 UTC | @DigitalChartist/85992 Nov 2026, 19:36 UTC | 1.00 | 5.6 hours |
| @glassnode/2084 · this entry4 Nov 2026, 21:01 UTC | @DigitalChartist/86145 Nov 2026, 08:08 UTC | 1.00 | 11 hours |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @DigitalChartist | 11 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 1.00 | 5.6 hours | this entry (11–0) |
| @CryptoProUpdates | 9 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 1.00 | 19 minutes | this entry (9–0) |
| @BitcoinInsightsDaily | 9 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.98 | 86 minutes | this entry (9–0) |
| @CryptoClassics | 6 (6/6 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.98 | 4.3 hours | this entry (6–0) |
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 0 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 172 comparable posts for this entry, running 29 July 2026 to 10 November 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.
Recorded under the key clone_source, last confirmed 11 November 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.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Nov 2026, 01:46 | 43,604 | +9 |
| 7 Nov 2026, 22:00 | 43,595 | -3 |
| 6 Nov 2026, 18:45 | 43,598 | -8 |
| 5 Nov 2026, 15:16 | 43,606 | -9 |
| 4 Nov 2026, 17:25 | 43,615 | -5 |
| 3 Nov 2026, 17:39 | 43,620 | -5 |
| 2 Nov 2026, 18:16 | 43,625 | -7 |
| 1 Nov 2026, 16:39 | 43,632 | -9 |
| 31 Oct 2026, 18:09 | 43,641 | -22 |
| 30 Oct 2026, 20:48 | 43,663 | -24 |
| 29 Oct 2026, 20:10 | 43,687 | -18 |
| 28 Oct 2026, 16:56 | 43,705 | -30 |
| 27 Oct 2026, 16:01 | 43,735 | -16 |
| 26 Oct 2026, 14:30 | 43,751 | -17 |
| 25 Oct 2026, 14:05 | 43,768 | -4 |
| 24 Oct 2026, 15:29 | 43,772 | -20 |
| 23 Oct 2026, 17:56 | 43,792 | -29 |
| 22 Oct 2026, 15:28 | 43,821 | -28 |
| 21 Oct 2026, 09:37 | 43,849 | +14 |
| 20 Oct 2026, 07:45 | 43,835 | first reading |
178 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 188 pages of 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 10 November 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 178 (29 July 2026 – 10 November 2026) |
| Views total | 238,160 |
| Reactions total | 1,537 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 11 Nov 2026, 05:42 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 11 November 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 2 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.
4,768 reactions across 177 posts, in 46 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 36.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 1,729 | 36.3% | |
| 👍 | 1,163 | 24.4% | |
| 🔥 | 737 | 15.5% | |
| 👀 | 358 | 7.51% | |
| 👏 | 129 | 2.71% | |
| 🤯 | 126 | 2.64% | |
| 🤔 | 87 | 1.82% | |
| 😱 | 65 | 1.36% | |
| ⚡ | 42 | 0.881% | |
| 🤣 | 35 | 0.734% | |
| 👎 | 32 | 0.671% | |
| 🥱 | 28 | 0.587% | |
| 🐳 | 26 | 0.545% | |
| 💯 | 20 | 0.419% | |
| 😢 | 17 | 0.357% | |
| 🥴 | 13 | 0.273% | |
| 🗿 | 12 | 0.252% | |
| 🎅 | 11 | 0.231% | |
| 🌚 | 10 | 0.21% | |
| 😐 | 10 | 0.21% | |
| 26 further kinds | 118 | 2.47% |
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 177 of the 178 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 4,768 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 178 most recent posts we hold, published 29 July 2026 to 10 November 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’s own ‘edited’ marker: 8 of 54 posts held from the last 30 days (14.8%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
In our new report with NOWPayments, we look at how stablecoins are used for payments. We deep dive into how USDT and USDC move on-chain and provide some practical guidance to merchants that accept stablecoin payments. Read the full report 👈
👍11❤7🔥5
ETF investors are selling $BTC again. US spot ETFs saw $696M of net outflows on Friday, the largest single day since January. Only two days in the past year saw larger outflows, and both came before price fell further. A return to steady inflows would ease that pressure.
👍13😢7❤6👀1😨1
35.4% of all #BTC (7.12M) has a visible public key, the part a future quantum computer could target. 25.8% of supply is exposed due to address reuse, 11.6% on exchanges. Moving those coins to a fresh address ends this exposure. Charts now live in Studio: https://glassno.de/exposed-supply
👍12🤯10🤣3👏2😱1
Altcoin trading volume has returned to normal levels. Through September, total altcoin volume spiked up to 4x Bitcoin's, marking a period of altcoin froth. As is often the case, this speculative alt activity coincided with the local market top, with $BTC peaking around 87k.
❤17👍9🤩4🔥3
Equities volume on Hyperliquid has overtaken $BTC volume again. Both Bitcoin and stocks have been grinding lower for weeks but crypto-native traders seem to be chasing the stock dip. The last time the ratio peaked, in August, BTC was near its lows before breaking out.
❤16👍6🔥3🤯2
$BTC trades near $75k on Monday after a failed push above $80k. ETF outflows were the heaviest since early July and short-term holders are near break-even, while leverage and demand for protection stay high. Read our latest BTC Market Pulse 👇
❤12👍3👏1🔥1
Hyperliquid whales are adding to their $BTC shorts. Their net positioning turned short 2 weeks ago after 7 months of being long. Short exposure is now the largest since October 2025. The last time they were this short, price moved down considerably.
👀27😱14🤯10❤8🌚1
$BTC has rarely tracked equities this closely. Over the last 30 US sessions, the correlation with the S&P 500 reached 0.80. Since 2020 it has spent most of its time far below that. Despite the talk of bitcoin's relative strength, macro sets the direction for now.
❤15👍7🤣7🗿3🤝1
Leverage grew through the $BTC selloff. Open interest climbed by about $1B during the US session drop, and by almost $500M more into today's US session. Funding cooled slightly but is now ramping up again. Longs look to be stepping back in.
🔥19👍7👀5😱3
Short-term holders are back underwater. Yesterday's drop pushed about 60% of the $BTC held by recent buyers below its cost basis. A day earlier, they were back in profit. For now, that lowers the risk of recent buyers cashing out into strength.
👍16⚡3👏3
$BTC traders are still here after the retrace. Before the spike in August, volume had sunk to its lowest since 2023. Despite BTC pulling back over the last weeks, volume has stayed above this August level. This indicates sustained interest in crypto after months of apathy.
❤25👍10😱4😈1
Bitcoin is retesting its August breakout levels. Holding above these levels keeps the August uptrend in place. Our latest Week on Chain report contains ten more analyses, including liquidation maps, options into year-end, midterms data and much more.
⚡9👍6👏2
Showing the 12 most recent of 178 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.
@glassnode edited 2 posts after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
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 20 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.
@glassnode named 2 handles that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all. A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was 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.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 28 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 30 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.
3 domains 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.
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 11 November 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Glassnode” (@glassnode), 43,604 subscribers as measured 11 November 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.