Channel
@touhoumichong
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
306subscribers
+3 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001117464436 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @touhoumichong |
| Created | Between 1 February 2017 and 31 March 2019— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/touhoumichong |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 08:26 | 306 | +2 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 07:50 | 304 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 23:38 | 304 | +1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 15:07 | 303 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 11 September 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 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 3 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (11 September 2025 – 3 August 2026) |
| Views total | 419 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 8 Aug 2026, 07:50 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.
20 reactions across 7 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 40.0% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 8 | 40.0% | |
| 🐳 | 3 | 15.0% | |
| 😁 | 3 | 15.0% | |
| 🍾 | 2 | 10.0% | |
| 🎉 | 2 | 10.0% | |
| 👍 | 1 | 5.00% | |
| 💩 | 1 | 5.00% |
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 7 of the 20 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 20reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 11 September 2025 to 3 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.
美日联合操纵日元汇率，短期效果显著，但基本就是在给交易员送钱。 两国是在各取所需的情况下联合干预汇率的。日本不希望日元贬值导致通胀上升，而本身能动用的资金有限，从之前披露的消息看，日本政府已经不断抛售持有的美债换取美元来支撑汇率了。而美债被抛售，尤其是在长债利率在 5% 以上的时候被抛售，则是美国政府不希望看到的，同时，美国更希望美元走弱，抛售美元支撑日元正好能达到赢好几次的目的。 然而，美日联合干预汇率能动用的实际资金量有限。美国配合日本操纵汇率的核心授权依据是《黄金储备法》，而该法允许财政部长直接掌控的外汇平准基金（Exchange Stabilization Fund, ESF）大约只有 2000 多亿美元规模，加上目前可知的日本在6月底还有 1619 亿美元现金存款，总计也不到 4000 亿美元，并且这部分资金是不可能都用在干预日元汇率上。相比于今年两次干预汇率，日本单方面投入 1143 亿美元的规模来看，双方即使联手…
感觉全世界都在充分相信后人的智慧这条路上越走越远 这样看川普还真是股清流，毕竟后人也不可能比他更懂，他只相信他自己
这届日本政府一直为了选票而努力，却不实际解决问题。 他们试图控制通胀，采取的手段是从 3 月开始，每月投入数千亿日元持续补贴，强行将国内终端油价控制在 170 日元左右。 民众直观感受到的通胀压力小了，但这行为本质上就是在发债做空日元，做大了债务规模。BOJ 又因债务规模等问题迟迟不敢加息，进一步压低了日元汇率。 日元贬值的直接后果是进口物价上涨，反过来加剧了严重依赖进口的日本的通胀。为了应对日元贬值，政府又不得不大手笔干预汇率，这消耗了外汇储备，进一步削弱了日元的地位。 结果只能是日元螺旋式下降，直至政府无力干预，输入型通胀根本压不住。 同样地，为了抚平国内民众对外国人增多、治安变差的不满，政府大幅提高了永住门槛。 日本的移民政策一直算不上友好，胜在要求很低。现在把永住的门槛一下子拉得那么高，本来愿意忍受十年移民监低成本拿永住的劳工也可以考虑离开了。反倒是相当比例的非法滞留者对此完全无感，而这部分人相比合法移民的管…
时隔一个月，日元一日内被暴力的拉到 158，大涨 3% 虽然还没公布这次美日联合拉盘的最终花费，但也不会少于 5 月初那次 11.73 万亿日元的规模吧。
一个人要看他做了什么，而不是说了什么。沃什上台两个月了，对外发声一直打造鹰派的形象，可实际上，就是拖着不加息，即使国债利率飞升，即使通胀目标失控。 https://t.me/jin10data/1390882
美日到了 40 年的关口，感觉全世界都在日等日本政府干预送钱。 而在高市支持率下降的情况下，我很好奇日银不加息的策略还能维持多久。
🎉1
前一天，伊朗没有领导人了 今天，双方达成了主要共识 …… 都没领导人了，您跟谁谈的？ 原来是代理人啊 那没事了，也许代理人在后天还没上位，说了啥都不算 Anyway，川普是真爱墨西哥卷饼
虽然我一直觉得无论谁在美联储主席的位置上都不会丧失专业性，然而，沃什不同，他就任美联储主席不是好事 如果说鲍威尔是稳健死板的学术官僚，沃什则是典型的权贵精英。他年轻而激进，有华尔街董事的背景，还是显赫家族的女婿，这次靠岳父背书上位，他不仅会对特朗普忠诚，更会对大资本忠诚 一切是有迹可循的，2008年金融海啸时，他作为幕后协助人的倾向已经是明显倒向华尔街的利益，2017年因为“太过精英且不够听话”被姆努钦拦下；2026年，他又因为“足够精英且绝对听话”而登顶 世界就是这么奇妙，一年前谁能想象，美国也搞忠诚不绝对，就是绝对不忠诚呢？
❤2
黄金上一次这么涨还是 79 年，三个月涨幅 139%，是怎么到顶的呢？ 79 年 10 月沃尔克确立紧缩货币政策，政策紧缩效果在 2 月开始显现，联邦基金利率从 2 月开始回升，同月 M2 增速开始下降，而黄金在 80 年 1 月 21 日到顶，这当中还叠加有 79 年 11 月伊朗人质事件和苏联攻打阿富汗的风险事件 然而，这次不同的是沃尔克有敢拉爆一切的勇气，鲍威尔则明显没有加息空间
26年1月还没过完，黄金就准备冲击5010美元了，短线是追高还是做空，看个人配置和喜好吧。 这轮资产暴涨的本质是法币信用的降级，尤其是美元体系的信用降级。这种降级在重塑与美元绑定资产的同时，推高一切以美元计价的资产。黄金白银只是在这种背景下被动的重拾金融储备属性，从而被推着上涨。 核心的危机在于美元-美债循环正在失效。过去是美国的敌人在去美元化，去年开始美国的传统盟友也加入了这个阵营。而全球主要国家都在抛美债，与此同时，美债规模正在突破天量的38万亿。 抛售与债务规模扩大，这是个正反馈的进程，而且有可能加速，加速的后果就是现行利率会飙升，特朗普亲自当联储主席都不可能压低的那种，而利率无疑会带崩所有。 这意味着，运行了半个多世纪的金融体系核心变了，美债正在失去无风险储备资产的地位，美元的霸权也面临结构性瓦解。所有资产在重新洗牌，远离美元相对独立的资产都在暴涨，而跟美元体系绑定过深的，如BTC则跟不上形势。 吊诡的是，目前…
🐳3🎉1
司法部刑事起诉鲍威尔，那还是买黄金吧
资本是无国界、无政治立场的，它只是单纯的嗜血
❤1💩1
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @touhoumichong. 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.
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.
“蟲子的自說自話” (@touhoumichong), 306 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/touhoumichong.
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.