5 measurements spanning 6 days, net +4. 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 6,408–6,425 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 07:44
6,415
-8
9 Aug 2026, 07:54
6,423
+13
6 Aug 2026, 12:24
6,410
-1
6 Aug 2026, 03:20
6,411
no change
6 Aug 2026, 02:03
6,411
first reading
Engagement
21 posts held, back to 21 June 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 9 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
52.6%
avg views ÷ 6,415 subscribers
Avg views / post
3,370
11 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.925%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
11
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 11 August 2026
Posts held
21 (21 June 2026 – 11 August 2026)
Views total
37,091
Reactions total
343
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Aug 2026, 03:10 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
Video runtime
1m 34s
Average length
1m 34s
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
626 reactions across 18 posts, in 8 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 60.2% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
377
60.2%
💩
117
18.7%
👍
70
11.2%
🙏
15
2.40%
🤔
13
2.08%
❤🔥
12
1.92%
👏
11
1.76%
🔥
11
1.76%
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 702reactions 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 21 June 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.
* 매우 중요한 내용이 많이 나온 Cantor의 FMS 리뷰
- "비트 수요가 공급을 5~10%포인트 상회하며 이 격차가 이번 10년 내내 지속될 것"이라는 언급
- 컨센서스는 향후 2개 분기 내 메모리 가격 정점을 예상하고 있지만, 업계 관계자들과의 펀더멘털 논의는 전혀 다른 이야기를 전하고 있음
- (루빈울트라의 HBM) 디스펙과 관련해서는 투자자들이 원인을 잘못 해석하고 있음. 이는 전적으로 공급 가용성의 문제이지 수요 파괴가 아님
- HBM4 가격계약 : SK하이닉스가 엔비디아에 GB당 32달러, 브로드컴에 36달러, AMD에 40달러로 계약을 확정한 것으로 파악
- 트렌드포스는 낸드에 대해 27년 하반기부터 가격하락을 예상했는데, 그러나 Cantor의 대화는 상당히 긍정적이었고 부정적 데이터 포인트는 어디에서도 찾을 수 …
>>모건스탠리 Shawn Kim “매도에서 매수로 전환”: 메모리 업황 조정 “막바지에 가까워졌음”, SK하이닉스 EPS 13% 상향
•보고서에서 메모리 반도체 업종의 가장 극심한 조정이 막바지에 가까워졌으며, 현재 밸류에이션이 매우 매력적이라고 지적했음. 삼성전자와 SK하이닉스에 대한 장기 강세 입장과 목표주가를 유지했으며, 두 회사의 주가가 현재 수준에서 60% 이상 상승할 여지가 있을 것으로 전망
•AI 수요의 구조적 확대, 기업들의 자본수익률 전환 및 장기계약이 업종 펀더멘털을 뒷받침할 것으로 전망했음. Kim은 7월에 메모리가 단기적인 조정을 받을 가능성이 있다고 경고한 바 있음
>大摩Shawn Kim“空转多”：存储行情修正“接近尾声”，SK海力士EPS上调13% https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/37789…
제 텔레에 똥이 많이 달리면 보통 반등하던데...
- 다음주 8/14에 분기 실적들 대부분 완료되는데, 그때까지 종목 장세 위주로 펼쳐질 것 같고
- 주주환원 전자가 먼저 나와줄거라 보고 여전히 전자는 비중 그대로 홀딩중, 닉스는 최근 연이은 안좋은 소식에 비중좀 줄이며 종목 플레이 실탄 확보중
- 전방도 여전히 좋고, 매크로도 개선되고 있으며, ai도 여전함 (deepseek이 왜 비용을 올릴까), cxmt 도 애플한테 싸게 안주려고함, 구글도 이런 와중에 회사채 또 발행.
안좋은거 하나는 수급과 차트 모양새....
라고 쓰고있는데 주주환원 발표 띠용
배당금이 적은데 당장 이사회에서 집행할 수 있는 돈만 내보낸거 같고,
연말인줄 알았는데 이번달/다음달 안에 해준다는거 보니까 시장은 그나마 가뭄의 단비 소식마냥 반등하고 있는거 아…
오늘 아침에 카톡방에 공유했던 생각들.
보통 하나의 큰 사이클이 올때, 관련 기업들은 쇼티지가 나기 때문에 증산을 하고, 그 증산을 통해 한번 더 주가의 밸류업이 이뤄지기 마련임.
대표적으로 22년도 일진전기 같은 변압기 기업들.
최근 삼성전자, 하이닉스의 P가 확정적으로 꺾일 것이고, Q사이클이 시작하기 때문에 사이클은 끝났다라는 논리가 지배적이었는데
이번 AI사이클은 이제까지 없던 사이클이었기 때문에, Q 증산이 이뤄지더라도 저 변압기 섹터처럼 한번 더 밸류업이 이뤄질 수 있지 않을까.
그렇다면 시간은 걸리겠지만 무난히 전고를 넘을 수 밖에 없다고 보여짐.
Pq « pQ 의 시대는 메모리에도 온다
3개월, 6개월, 1년 뒤
또는 5년, 10년 뒤
시장은 오늘날을 무엇으로 기록할까..
수급에 따른 과한 조정?
AI 버블이 터진 날?
반도체 사이클의 끝?
한국 주식의 종말?
미래 어느 시점에서 오늘을 돌아보면
AI 산업은 여전히 성장하고 있을 것이고
여전히 어마무시한 돈이 투입되고 있을 것이고
한국 시장은 그 수혜를 받고 있었다고 기록될 것이다.
지금은 하루하루가 너무 거칠고
모든 게 끝난 것처럼 느껴지지만
결국 방향이 틀리지 않았다면
우리가 해야 할 일은 하나 아닐까
끝까지 버티고
살아남자
(나한테 하는 말..)
[골드만삭스] China AI 밸류체인 매수
《Trading Strategy: Long China's AI Value Chain》
글로벌 AI 투자 내에서 중요한 구조적 변화(Capital Rotation)가 일어나고 있다. 기존의 'AI = 엔비디아 + SK하이닉스'라는 단일 내러티브에서 벗어나, 이제는 '자주적이고 완결된 공급망을 갖춘 중국 AI 밸류체인'으로 자금이 이동하고 있다는 관점입니다.
본 보고서의 핵심 논리와 자산 배분 전략은 다음과 같습니다.
1. 핵심 투자 논거: 심각한 '자금 미스매치(Mismatch)'와 저평가
골드만삭스는 현재 중국 AI 자산이 펀더멘털에 비해 글로벌 자금 유입이 터무니없이 적은 '심각한 미스매치' 상태에 있으며, 이것이 곧 강력한 밸류에이션 매력(투자 기회)을 의미한다고 지적합니다.
글로벌 매출…
❤9
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @kastardgood. 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 — 456,417 of 1,183,361entries 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.
“카스타드 잘하는집.ai” (@kastardgood), 6,415 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/kastardgood.
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.
