4 measurements spanning 7 days, net -10. 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 7,390–7,403 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 22:05
7,391
-5
9 Aug 2026, 12:32
7,396
-5
6 Aug 2026, 03:07
7,401
no change
6 Aug 2026, 00:55
7,401
first reading
Engagement
16 posts held, back to 1 June 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 11 pagesof 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 16 posts for this entry, the most recent from 6 November 2025. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Reaction mix
404 reactions across 15 posts, in 20 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.2% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
🔥
102
25.2%
❤
68
16.8%
👍
67
16.6%
❤🔥
30
7.43%
🍾
20
4.95%
🦄
19
4.70%
🎉
18
4.46%
👏
15
3.71%
😍
13
3.22%
🤣
13
3.22%
💘
12
2.97%
🥰
8
1.98%
😱
6
1.49%
🏆
3
0.743%
🤩
3
0.743%
🌚
2
0.495%
🤝
2
0.495%
✍
1
0.248%
💯
1
0.248%
🙏
1
0.248%
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 15 of the 16 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 404reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 16 most recent posts we hold, published 1 June 2025 to 6 November 2025, 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
63
across the posts below
Posts paid on
10
of 15 we hold a reading for · 67%
Most on one post
30
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @itsMissTelegram. 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 16 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 1 June 2025 to 6 November 2025. 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.
Privacy Moves Into Messengers: Why the Smartest Services Switch to Telegram Mini Apps ✨
Chat-native experiences are shaping the next era of private leisure. A single tap and you’re in — no installs, no friction, just pure intent.
Why does Telegram do it better?
💎 One-tap journey: from content to action with zero distractions
💎 All-in-one: browse, verify, book — never leaving your chat
💎 Utility and privacy in th…
🎾 Mia Zelu: how an AI influencer hacked the "being there"
Posts of Mia on the stands with a Pimm’s in hand and captioned like a live report made many think she was actually at Wimbledon. The story jumped to the mainstream with write‑ups from People and Tennis.com, and even a NYT piece on virtual stars.
Why the hype 😱
– The event’s status + instant visual cues (grandstand, Pimm’s, tennis‑core fit) create a believab…
AI or NOT — Spot the AI 👀
Back with a vision test: one glance, one guess — who’s AI‑generated and who’s the real deal? 😏
Vote below — 10 seconds on the clock ⏰
Answer lives under the spoiler.
Left: Aitana (AI‑generated virtual model). Right: a real model from Milan Fashion Week SS26.
Cast your vote — then ping that fashion‑and‑AI expert friend 😎
Community power ✦ keeping the off‑season flame on
Thanks for not killing the lights in the off‑season — that patience is what turns waiting into lift‑off.
⚡️ The first special Miss TON season hit the flagship TON Festival stage. We made it real: real‑world girls and AI personas on one stage, a Telegram Mini App, tap‑to‑vote, AI or NOT, lootboxes and badges — everything runs and is ready for upgrades.
And yes — th…
Maria. Quiet power ✨
Runner‑up in Miss TON — the community’s choice at TON Fest
She didn’t build a hype machine — she just kept doing her work, her craft, her day, honestly and with heart.
Then the result hit her: people found her on their own — and voted on their own. In all the digital noise, they heard a real signal 👀
Why did it work? Simple: you can see sincerity — when you share what you love instead of playin…
✨ Off‑season intermission. Winter is coming.
Our summer was loud. Hope yours was too.
The feed is quieter.
We’re taking an off‑season intermission to come back brighter and stronger — no rush for noise.
The channel stays warm: drops, memes, Influence Lab, and AI or NOT dilemmas 💥
Thanks for staying close. Seen. Appreciated.
Big posts in the coming days 👀 Turn on notifications 🔔
🎁 Miss TON — Daria Pobocheva
A special title created for TON Festival.
The first crown chosen by taps.
Through a Telegram Mini App — in tap-to-earn format.
And you picked her.
Daria is the first face of TON.
The face of TON Fest. The face of the community. The face of the chain.
You can just be yourself — and that’s already enough.
In moments like this, even silent support feels loud. And you know: I must be doing …
🧠 AI is here.
And they're coming for the throne.
2025. The era begins — where votes go to those who don’t even exist.
Not actresses. Not personalities. No bodies. No age. No passports.
Just presence, vibe, and memetic power.
Not a bug — a plot twist.
This is the world’s first experiment
where human and virtual influencers compete for dominance in the attention economy.
And you — you're either watching it.
Or shapin…
👑 Top-10 Miss TON Blockchain
Not just a recap.
A log of events — etched in the attention feed.
10 heroines of the special TON Festival nomination — the ones who stayed in the frame.
Not just joined — but held your gaze till the very end 👇
🏆 Daria Pobocheva — 4.39M
📱 @pobochevaa
Entered the frame — and stayed.
Not just a frontrunner — she set the pace.
Confidence + early fanbase from the pilot = pure token of victo…
👑 Who is Miss TON?
She’s not just the girl who got the most votes.
Not just a number on the leaderboard.
Not just a title.
She’s the energy people responded to.
The image they believed in.
The voice that didn’t scream — but resonated.
📸 You’ll see her soon.
And you’ll feel why it was her.
🔥15👍12❤7👏6🙏1
Showing the 12 most recent of 16 posts we hold for @itsMissTelegram. 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.
Polls
The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 16 most recent posts we hold, published 1 June 2025 to 6 November 2025. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 461,618 of 1,160,990entries 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 2 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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
2
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
2
vacant every time we have ever looked
@itsMissTelegram 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.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@alekssandra525 named in 4 posts, 8 August 2026 – 13 August 2026
@votre_envie named in 4 posts, 8 August 2026 – 13 August 2026
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.
“Miss Telegram” (@itsMissTelegram), 7,391 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/itsMissTelegram.
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.