Channel
@racksexplained
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
34subscribers
+0 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1003261705755 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @racksexplained |
| Created | 6 November 2025 — measured — dated from the channel’s first post |
| First recorded | 11 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 2 |
| On Telegram | t.me/racksexplained |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Aug 2026, 00:32 | 34 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 17:41 | 34 | first reading |
13 posts held, back to 6 November 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 1 pageof 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 13 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 November 2025. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 11 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
33 reactions across 10 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 57.6% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 19 | 57.6% | |
| 🤡 | 8 | 24.2% | |
| 🤣 | 4 | 12.1% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 6.06% |
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 10 of the 13 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 33reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 13 most recent posts we hold, published 6 November 2025 to 7 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.
He also messaged me claiming I fake giveaways which is just false. We’ve given away around $10K since the launch of the channels, with $1K being the biggest single giveaways we’ve done. Here are some TXIDs and proof of us paying members: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xce83de32488dfb001b79ef9bd31d6d964771a50594c6befbbdc645d651669bf5 https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd33232df7afa03b27bd8e147a10faee580eea6987ec730fa7d201d57f3571c4…
❤3
Ok so the kid who made that DWC on me ran out of attention and is now spreading misinformation. I usually keep things private, but since he’s calling my ads scams let’s clear it up. I was offered over $20K to promote a memecoin and rug it, I declined and blocked the user. Clark MM also offered me money to promote his groupchat, I declined that too. Across all my advertisements, I’ve only ever taken down around 3 on…
❤2
Sticker, posted without a caption
❤2
The person claiming to be the “victim” fully edited his original message after we exposed his partner. Also, let’s be clear nobody got bullied. He flexed $20K and called @rival poor. Rival then showed $250K on Stake, and suddenly the same guy went quiet and started claiming he was “bullied.”
😁2
I’m not entertaining this any further. He claimed they didn’t work together, yet the group chat was literally made to discuss a refund for the ad. Both of them joined the GC and were clearly friends. If you’re not involved, why are you speaking for @xdlolafk or asking for a refund on his behalf? Maybe because it’s your friend or possibly your main
❤6🤡2
Another screenshot shows Cupid having to refund the buyer after he failed to provide the services. He was even offered $5K to do the lookup in front of Cupid, but as always, folded because their entire operation revolves around fake services meant to scam. He rented @tilt, exit scammed on that alias, and later sold the channel username.
🤡2🤣2
Here’s @cupid vouching that they’re scammers he was the middleman in several of their deals, and they failed to deliver their services. Every customer from those deals had to be refunded because of them.
🤡2🤣2
Last but not least these guys genuinely bought an ad with the full intention of scamming. After scamming multiple people, they demanded a $500 refund for their ad. They even said it was “unfair” that I took their ad down and that it should stay up “even if they scam.” If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, I don’t know what will.
🤡2
Right after failing to do the lookup, he demanded his $2K back within the same 10-minute span then suddenly claimed he “doesn’t do lookups.” Since then, he’s been begging me for any amount of money to delete the channel because he’s broke.
Here’s him saying I can release the $2K after he failed to do the lookup. The entire deal was for a lookup Obviously, he won’t show these screenshots because he doesn’t want anyone to see this part.
❤3
Here’s him agreeing to do the lookup the deal was that if it worked, @rival would send him $1K. But since he was so confident in his fake services, he ended up sending me $2K instead. I’ll also show proof of both Cupid and Plug refunding every deal they handle, since they actually fulfill their services and don’t run off with anyone’s money.
I’ll be explaining the DWC post made on me claiming I scammed $2K. Before I start if you genuinely believe I’d scam $2K, check @scammed and see every single pinned post there costs more than that. It simply wouldn’t make sense. These two kids work together and have been scamming across the entire community. One of them bought an ad from me, and right after, I received 30+ DMs from people showing proof of him scammi…
❤3
Showing the 12 most recent of 13 posts we hold for @racksexplained. 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.
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.
@racksexplained named 1 handle 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.
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 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“racks debunks” (@racksexplained), 34 subscribers as measured 11 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/racksexplained.
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.