2 measurements taken within a single day. 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 242–244 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 12:43
243
no change
12 Aug 2026, 03:31
243
first reading
Engagement
19 posts held, back to 24 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 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
21.5%
avg views ÷ 243 subscribers
Avg views / post
52.2
19 posts measured
Reaction rate
14.6%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
19
of 19 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 16 of 19 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 11 August 2026
Posts held
19 (24 July 2026 – 11 August 2026)
Views total
991
Reactions total
132
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Aug 2026, 03:31 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.
Reaction mix
132 reactions across 15 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 35.6% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
💯
47
35.6%
😎
31
23.5%
custom 5841399794529999749
23
17.4%
custom 5404581180777470198
15
11.4%
😁
11
8.33%
🤯
5
3.79%
Custom emoji. 2 of the rows above are Telegram custom emoji, which the public preview renders as an element carrying only a numeric id — no character, and no image we can reach. The id is printed as-is rather than substituted with a look-alike glyph, because a stand-in would be our invention showing where a measurement should be. The counts beside them areTelegram’s.
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 16 of the 19 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 132reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 19 most recent posts we hold, published 24 July 2026 to 11 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.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
2
across the posts below
Posts paid on
2
of 19 we hold a reading for · 11%
Most on one post
1
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @gramconscious. 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 19 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 24 July 2026 to 11 August 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.
A lot of people are stuck in a scarcity mindset and have forgotten that change is the default mode of the universe.
Instead of identifying what is becoming scarce and adapting to it, they defend what is becoming abundant.
That's the trap.
Trying to preserve the value of yesterday instead of adapting to where value is moving tomorrow.
Adaptive mindset > scarcity mindset.
People with an adaptive mindset move upwar…
And this is even more reason why you shouldn't allow your major drive to be fear or validation. It's a vulnerability, and manipulative people will always take advantage of that by using guilt-tripping to control you and limit your growth and potential.
Which is why sound judgment matters.
Don't let other people's fear, guilt, or approval become the mechanism that determines your life. Use sound judgment, pursue wha…
And you know the funniest part? 😂
For example, if Pavel Durov or someone else with high status uses AI to articulate and communicate their thoughts on Telegram or X, and those same people who label other people's content as “AI slop” reply to their comments, and Pavel Durov or someone else with high status responds using AI to articulate and communicate their own thoughts, they'll share it, celebrate it, and even br…
Using AI to articulate and communicate your thoughts doesn't make the thoughts artificial.
AI can help you structure, refine, expand, or stress-test your thoughts, but the underlying beliefs, insights, and arguments are still entirely yours.
What matters isn't whether AI touched the message. What matters is whether the idea has substance, whether the reasoning is coherent, and whether you can defend it when challen…
Everyone has unique human capabilities, whether it's judgment, creativity, imagination, intuition, empathy, perspective, problem solving, values, or a unique way of seeing the world.
AI can't replace that uniqueness, no matter how capable it becomes.
AI's job is to amplify those unique capabilities, turning them into greater capacity to express, explore, and execute
@gramconscious
I think In the future, how much you can contribute to society will become more valuable and matter more than how much you have in your bank account.
Being who you are is actually the cheat code to becoming valuable.
Because we are all unique beings.
Nobody is actually useless.
As AI becomes more capable, which is inevitable, human value will increasingly be defined by what you uniquely bring into existence, not m…
🏆 The International Olympiad in AI finished yesterday in Astana.
🇷🇺 The Russian team took first place in the team competition, and Artem Gorokhov from my home city won the individual event. Well done! 💪
🇰🇿 I'm equally happy for the host country, Kazakhstan, whose Dauzhan Beketov took the second-highest individual score.👏
📩We're in touch with the organizers to deliver the winners' prizes from Telegram ($106,500+) s…
I think COCOON's reasoning token pricing is evidence that its architecture is designed with reasoning intensive AI workloads in mind. Although it doesn't prove that neuro symbolic AI has been deeply integrated into the COCOON Network yet, it leaves room for a neuro symbolic execution architecture.
Because if COCOON Network charges a premium for "reasoning" tokens, I think that reasoning should eventually mean more t…
I think the whole approach of centralizing AI in the name of preventing AI misuse makes zero sense.
Both centralized AI and decentralized AI carry misuse risks.
Both can be abused by malicious actors. In fact, centralized AI can be even worse because it concentrates power in the hands of a few. No governance model can completely eliminate AI misuse.
The real question is not whether misuse will happen.
It's who ho…
I can remember when former Apple CEO Tim Cook said this.
My question is, how did he know?
And what is Apple's problem with what people do with the smartphones they bought with their hard earned money?
Which means if they don't like what you're doing with your smartphone, they can do anything to stop you from using it.
I just don't like anything apple ecosystem
All they care about is mass surveillance and censorship
Nothing more
Signed Micky Stonez
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @gramconscious. 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.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 559,471 of 1,481,306entries 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 1 registered channel — 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.
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 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“TONCONSCIOUS” (@gramconscious), 243 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/gramconscious.
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.
