외인이 배당더타가는게 싫음 외인보다 더사면 됩니다. 아니 그건 둘째치고 미국 고배당etf는 잘만사면서 왜 외인이 타가는건 안된단건가요?
👍6❤1👏1🤪1

Channel
@nq_rgc
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
6,002subscribers
+157 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1003800716407 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @nq_rgc |
| Created | Between 1 February 2026 and 30 June 2026— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/nq_rgc |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 15:29 | 6,002 | +146 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 15:08 | 5,856 | +11 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 19:32 | 5,845 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 19:21 | 5,845 | first reading |
25 posts held, back to 23 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 7 pagesof 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. It is computed over the 22 of 25 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 25 (23 July 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 75,185 |
| Reactions total | 430 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 03:46 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.
430 reactions across 22 posts, in 14 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 29.1% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 125 | 29.1% | |
| ❤ | 113 | 26.3% | |
| 🤣 | 64 | 14.9% | |
| 🖕 | 35 | 8.14% | |
| 👏 | 25 | 5.81% | |
| 🤯 | 20 | 4.65% | |
| 💩 | 14 | 3.26% | |
| 👎 | 9 | 2.09% | |
| 🥰 | 9 | 2.09% | |
| 🔥 | 6 | 1.40% | |
| 😁 | 6 | 1.40% | |
| 🤮 | 2 | 0.465% | |
| 🤪 | 1 | 0.233% | |
| 🤷♀ | 1 | 0.233% |
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 22 of the 25 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 430reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 25 most recent posts we hold, published 23 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.
외인이 배당더타가는게 싫음 외인보다 더사면 됩니다. 아니 그건 둘째치고 미국 고배당etf는 잘만사면서 왜 외인이 타가는건 안된단건가요?
👍6❤1👏1🤪1
쓸데없이 나가는 돈을 통제하는게 환율관리의 첫걸음
👍5
환율걱정은 이럴때하는게아니죠
✅ 삼성전자 외국인 지분율 46.59%, 하이닉스 50.74% 300조로 잡고, 물론 배당이 다는 아니겠지만 단순하게 배당으로 계산해도 외국인에게 150조가 돌아가는 이것이 주주환원 대책이라… 코스닥 시장 전체 시가총액이 430조, 뭐 코스닥 성장기업에 동반성장펀드를 만들어 일부는 투자해달라고 하는 건 아닌데, 150조 가까이 외국인에게 배당 등으로 돌아가면 환율은 괜찮나요? 삼전닉스 주주환원, 200조? 300조?
👎4
https://www.theguru.co.kr/news/article.html?no=105617
👍6❤3
참고요
❤17🤯2🖕1🤮1
예상대로갑니다
🤯11🖕5❤1💩1
[단독] 머스크, 태양광 내재화 박차…폴리실리콘 분야 진출까지 모색 - DIGITIMES (by https://t.me/TNBfolio) - Elon Musk가 Tesla 및 SpaceX를 통해 장기 목표 200GW 규모의 미국 태양광 통합 생산 생태계 구축을 추진한다. - Tesla는 텍사스에 셀과 모듈부터 잉곳 성장 및 웨이퍼 슬라이싱을 포함하는 100GW 규모의 태양광 제조 허브 조성을 계획하고 있다. - SpaceX는 스타링크 및 우주 AI 연산 인프라 지원을 목적으로 HJT 기술 기반의 10GW 태양광 셀 공장을 건설 중이다. - Musk는 인플레이션감축법 수혜와 비중국 공급망 확보를 위해 OCI 등의 동남아산 폴리실리콘 조달을 추진하고 있다. - 업계에서는 장비 계약 현황을 바탕으로 Musk가 향후 자체적인 폴리실리콘 생산 진출까지…
❤10🤯2
요즘에야 민간우주 개척 이런 말이 나오면서 우주 발사 비용 이야기가 나오지만 사실 우주 산업은 방위산업과 상당히 유관합니다. 실제 1차 우주경쟁 이후 대부분의 우주 기술은 국가 안보를 위해 개발되었고 이후 민간에 풀렸습니다. 여기에 얘길 했나 기억이 안 나는데 록히드마틴 같은 탑티어 방산 기업들은 미국 정부와 고정 장기 + 고정 마진 계약을 맺습니다. 이러한 계약 방식으로 인해 신기술 개발 등에 쓰이는 비용을 온전히 미국정부로부터 보장받고, 고정된 마진 퍼센테이지를 확보할 수 있습니다. 우주 산업 역시 과거에는 이런 식으로 계약이 진행되었기에 굳이 비용이 저렴한 중국 부품을 끼워넣을 필요가 없던 것. (실제로 미사일 산업도 원자재인 텅스텐이나 희토류 등에나 중국 공급망이 쓰이지 부품 레벨부터는 중국 공급망 의존도가 거의 없습니다.) …
👍44❤11🖕5👏1
두 뉴스 모두 공급망 관련 뉴스인데 후자는 바로 광통신이 반응하고 있고요 (프리장 LITE +10.77%, VIAV +6.73%) 전자는 태양광을 수혜로 보고 있습니다. 스페이스X 납품하는 한국회사들 수혜, 이것도 맞는 말인데 사실 미국의 우주산업의 경우 중국의 영향이 애초에 적기 때문입니다.
🥰9👍5
바쁜게 끝난건 아니고, 해당 뉴스들 관련해서..
👍16❤5
오랜만입니다. 많이바빴습니다.
👍14❤5
Showing the 12 most recent of 25 posts we hold for @nq_rgc. 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 — 259,017 of 1,481,502entries 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.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
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 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.
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.
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 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“나스닥혁명수비대” (@nq_rgc), 6,002 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/nq_rgc.
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.