5 measurements spanning 10 days, net +9. 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 1,323–1,334 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
16 Aug 2026, 18:08
1,333
+1
13 Aug 2026, 14:28
1,332
+3
10 Aug 2026, 11:15
1,329
+1
7 Aug 2026, 19:33
1,328
+4
7 Aug 2026, 01:16
1,324
first reading
Engagement
17 posts held, back to 16 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.
ERR · 30 days
33.6%
avg views ÷ 1,333 subscribers
Avg views / post
448
1 post measured
Reaction rate
3.79%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 17 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 1 August 2026
Posts held
17 (16 November 2025 – 1 August 2026)
Views total
448
Reactions total
17
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
7 Aug 2026, 01:16 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
214 reactions across 17 posts, in 16 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 36.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
78
36.4%
🤡
50
23.4%
🫡
24
11.2%
🤣
16
7.48%
👍
15
7.01%
🔥
9
4.21%
👎
4
1.87%
💯
4
1.87%
🌭
3
1.40%
🕊
3
1.40%
😱
2
0.935%
🥰
2
0.935%
⚡
1
0.467%
🐳
1
0.467%
👀
1
0.467%
👏
1
0.467%
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 17 of the 17 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 214reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 16 November 2025 to 1 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.
If the crypto i fell in love with ever returns ill come back and try and be as good as I used to be and do well for us all, im just waiting for the right time, but none of it is possible without your help and the community we once had on telegram and at caesars calls
When people get together and believe in an idea or eachother anything is possible, changes way beyond crypto even, miss yall and hope youre doing well
Id like to remind people of something. I started in 2021 in the bear market where scams were all over the place and 200k mc was a success and hard to earn. Scams were everywhere and most of us on telegram didnt know how to detect them. The only people making money were devs, cmc (cz), reddit, snipers and scammy crypto influencers.
Then I started making raids unique and effective, became a raid leader and made a comm…
If ansem were a real person id come back and knock him the fuck out right now and give all the money scammed using that account to you hard working trenchers
Just remember that when every sell out bullshit scammy Twitter big name account bull posted btc and eth at ath and kept telling you to buy more on any slight dip... I was warning yall that the space had gone to shit and to peel out.
Bring the community and the unity back and you'll see what im truly capable of for the second time
Miladys connection to pedophile rings and the FBI. First picture is before miladys launched and the owner of the Instagram account is a known pedophile.
Next 2 are from 1981 and was the first miladys sighting from a clan called hillbilly clan no 2. Google that clan and you'll see how fucked its members and presidents have been. Gross stuff.
Hilbilly clan no2 has direct ties to coffeezillas video editor as well and…
Crypto will only be great again when I return and save it for the 2nd time, for now we wait, I hope you all can see how shitty it has been since the solana boom and realize the reason I fought so hard on Twitter was purely for the good of the space
Now would be a great time to revisit this content from the youtube. https://www.youtube.com/@CaesarsCalls/playlists
Check out the scammers exposed videos again for some great entertainment but also so you can see that I tried to warn people years in advance and if you check the comment section you will see how dumb people were and how so many doubted me. Threw away the chance to make millions and millions being a se…
Even though Twitter bans me anytime I get 5k followers or more.. I miss some of those crypto spaces and people.
Are there still any spaces on Twitter worth joining and trying to speak at or are people just done with that kind of crypto?
Genuinely curious, also when are you guys going to be ready to expose cz, vitalik, musk, Trump, tons of celebs and higher ups? Been patiently waiting for yall in the bushes
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @the_robinhood_of_crypto. 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 — 28,210 of 1,550,220entries 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.
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 16 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Robin Hood” (@the_robinhood_of_crypto), 1,333 subscribers as measured 16 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/the_robinhood_of_crypto.
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.