#网友投稿:西港“日月兴赌场”路段,宪兵设卡查车,楼上住户以为突击检查,犹如惊弓之鸟,吓得闻风而逃。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
👍5👌2🤣2

Channel
@tp111
On this record: Topic · Observations · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
45,741subscribers
-4,203 since we began measuring on 8 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001427381992 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @tp111 |
| Created | Between 1 April 2019 and 31 October 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 November 2026 |
| Measurements held | 63 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 November 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/tp111 |
National news — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 9 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 76% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and the other topics.
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Posts published here appear in near-verbatim form on 4 other registered channels. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
| Posted first | Then | Overlap | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| @tp111/62249 · this entry18 Oct 2026, 08:37 UTC | @mlxy1218/1497218 Oct 2026, 08:37 UTC | 0.96 | under a minute |
| @tp111/61903 · this entry12 Oct 2026, 14:10 UTC | @mlxy1218/1480612 Oct 2026, 14:10 UTC | 0.96 | under a minute |
| @tp111/61861 · this entry12 Oct 2026, 06:10 UTC | @mlxy1218/1477212 Oct 2026, 06:11 UTC | 0.95 | under a minute |
| @tp111/62215 · this entry17 Oct 2026, 12:31 UTC | @mlxy1218/1495817 Oct 2026, 12:31 UTC | 0.95 | under a minute |
| @tp111/61834 · this entry11 Oct 2026, 11:23 UTC | @mlxy1218/1474811 Oct 2026, 11:23 UTC | 0.95 | under a minute |
| @tp111/61850 · this entry12 Oct 2026, 03:13 UTC | @mlxy1218/1476212 Oct 2026, 03:13 UTC | 0.95 | under a minute |
| Channel | Matching posts | Text overlap | Typical gap | Published first |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| @mlxy1218 | 24 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.95 | under a minute | this entry (24–0) |
| @pp854 | 15 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.95 | under a minute | @pp854 (12–3) |
| @huarenvvip | 9 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.89 | under a minute | this entry (9–0) |
| @xqdsj | 8 (8/8 hand-verifiable sample passed) | 0.90 | under a minute | this entry (7–1) |
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. 13 of the 13 matches recorded here fall after that date and carried no header when we read them. The rest predate reliable capture and are not evidence either way.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 1,678 comparable posts for this entry, running 8 August 2026 to 10 November 2026. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
Recorded under the keys clone_copy · clone_source, last confirmed 11 November 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Nov 2026, 00:50 | 45,741 | -250 |
| 9 Nov 2026, 09:50 | 45,991 | -192 |
| 7 Nov 2026, 23:11 | 46,183 | -106 |
| 6 Nov 2026, 23:26 | 46,289 | -54 |
| 5 Nov 2026, 21:18 | 46,343 | -29 |
| 4 Nov 2026, 21:36 | 46,372 | -41 |
| 3 Nov 2026, 22:31 | 46,413 | -28 |
| 2 Nov 2026, 20:46 | 46,441 | -19 |
| 1 Nov 2026, 18:10 | 46,460 | -73 |
| 31 Oct 2026, 21:11 | 46,533 | -99 |
| 30 Oct 2026, 18:56 | 46,632 | -3,046 |
| 29 Oct 2026, 17:30 | 49,678 | -65 |
| 28 Oct 2026, 15:59 | 49,743 | -113 |
| 27 Oct 2026, 19:27 | 49,856 | -146 |
| 26 Oct 2026, 18:51 | 50,002 | -146 |
| 25 Oct 2026, 22:15 | 50,148 | -99 |
| 24 Oct 2026, 19:18 | 50,247 | -5,941 |
| 23 Oct 2026, 22:08 | 56,188 | -75 |
| 23 Oct 2026, 00:36 | 56,263 | -96 |
| 21 Oct 2026, 22:16 | 56,359 | first reading |
1,966 posts held, back to 8 August 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 189 pages of 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 598 of 663 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 10 November 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 1,966 (8 August 2026 – 10 November 2026) |
| Views total | 2,928,831 |
| Reactions total | 2,450 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 11 Nov 2026, 00:35 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.
Measured directly from 273 videos 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.
3,743 reactions across 885 posts, in 22 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 31.9% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 1,195 | 31.9% | |
| 👍 | 968 | 25.9% | |
| 🤣 | 491 | 13.1% | |
| 😁 | 242 | 6.47% | |
| 😢 | 235 | 6.28% | |
| 😭 | 155 | 4.14% | |
| 👏 | 108 | 2.89% | |
| 🔥 | 80 | 2.14% | |
| 🥰 | 66 | 1.76% | |
| 🤡 | 44 | 1.18% | |
| 💩 | 42 | 1.12% | |
| 👌 | 32 | 0.855% | |
| 🙏 | 17 | 0.454% | |
| 😱 | 15 | 0.401% | |
| 👎 | 12 | 0.321% | |
| 😡 | 10 | 0.267% | |
| 🤬 | 10 | 0.267% | |
| 🍌 | 7 | 0.187% | |
| 👀 | 6 | 0.16% | |
| 🤮 | 5 | 0.134% | |
| 2 further kinds | 3 | 0.08% |
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 896 of the 1,000 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 3,743 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 1,000 most recent posts we hold (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 26 September 2026 to 10 November 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.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @tp111. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 1,000 most recent posts we hold for this entry (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 26 September 2026 to 10 November 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 7 of 663 posts held from the last 30 days (1.06%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
#网友投稿:西港“日月兴赌场”路段,宪兵设卡查车,楼上住户以为突击检查,犹如惊弓之鸟,吓得闻风而逃。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
👍5👌2🤣2
#老挝资讯:万象捣一网络犯罪窝点,抓获1名韩国籍嫌疑人! 老媒媒体11月10日报道:上周,老挝公安部专项工作组在万象市赛色塔县亮桑村一处出租屋,抓获1名韩国籍男子。 行动现场查获手机41部、笔记本电脑5台、iPad 8台等作案工具。 目前,案件正在进一步侦办中。 电信文脉在万象止步于此… 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
❤3👍1🔥1
🇲🇾马来西亚多州发布雷暴警报,吉隆坡、雪兰莪及柔佛等地受影响 马来西亚气象局于11月10日发布雷暴天气警报,提醒多个州属及吉隆坡部分地区可能出现雷暴、强降雨及强风,相关警报有效至当天傍晚5时。 受影响地区包括玻璃市、吉打、彭亨、雪兰莪、吉隆坡、森美兰、柔佛、砂拉越及沙巴部分地区。 气象局指出,部分地区可能出现短时间强降雨及强风,民众应提高警惕,特别是在户外活动及驾车出行时,注意天气变化,避免前往容易发生积水或树木倒塌的区域。 当局呼吁公众密切关注气象局发布的最新天气预报及警报,并采取必要的安全防范措施。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
❤5👍2🔥2
#付费广告 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 🇻🇳🇻🇪🇻🇳🇻🇳🇻🇪 🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷 🏆 多元游戏 · 一站畅玩 🏆 真人/电子/体育/棋牌/捕鱼/彩票 🏆 每日返水 · 福利不断 🏆 极速出款 · 高效服务 🏆 7×24小时在线客服 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 🏆支持认证:点击可查 🌟😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 🩷🩷🩷 🩷🩷🩷 🩷🩷🩷 🩷🩷🩷 🩷🩷🩷 🩷🩷🩷 🌟😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆: M8.com 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆: @m8baby04 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆: @m8vvip 🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷: @M8COM04_bot
🇱🇦 老挝警方捣毁万象网络犯罪窝点,16名日本籍嫌疑人被捕! 老媒报道:上周,老挝公安部专项工作组突袭万象市赛塔尼县纳隆村一处出租屋,打掉一处网络犯罪窝点,当场抓获16名日本籍嫌疑人。 行动现场查获手机55部、iPad 4台等作案工具。 目前,案件正在进一步侦办深挖中。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
❤2
#网友投稿:怀念以前的西港,不知道什么时候才能再回来! 曾经的西港,街头巷尾随处可见中国人的身影,熟悉的中文招牌、热闹的街道,还有来自五湖四海的同胞。 如今再回头看,多少人感慨万千。有人离开了,有人回国了,也有人再也没有回来。 一张旧照片,勾起的不只是回忆,更是那段曾经热闹的岁月。不知道还要等多久,西港才能重新恢复往日的烟火气?也不知道那些熟悉的面孔,还有没有机会再次相聚。 怀念以前的西港,也希望如今身在海外的每一个人,都能平安顺利。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
😭5😢2❤1
金边-海口直飞航班下月开通 海南航空宣布,将于2026年12月12日正式开通海口至柬埔寨金边的直飞往返航线,每周二、四、六执飞3班。去程HU457于当地时间13:50从海口起飞,15:00抵达金边;回程HU458于16:05从金边起飞,19:20返回海口。 此外,柬埔寨航空已于10月10日恢复金边至三亚航线,柬埔寨国家航空也计划于12月新增金边往返海口及三亚航班。届时,海南与金边之间将有三家航司提供直飞服务,进一步便利两地商旅往来。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
❤2🤣1
#小姐姐投稿:在东南亚待久了,真的不敢再轻易相信爱情了。 说实话,在东南亚待了这么久,感情上真的越来越疲惫了。见过太多嘴上说爱你、转身却把你丢下的男人,也听过太多好听的承诺。 刚认识的时候,甜言蜜语说得比谁都好听,恨不得把全世界都给你。可真到了需要他承担责任、解决问题的时候,态度就完全变了。 以前觉得两个人在一起,最重要的是感情。现在才发现,有些男人只想享受你带来的温柔,却不愿意承担一丁点责任。 尤其是在东南亚这个环境里,认识一个人好像很容易,真正遇到一个靠谱的人却很难。 有人今天对你嘘寒问暖,明天就能跟别人暧昧;有人口口声声说会照顾你,可一旦遇到现实问题,第一反应不是怎么解决,而是先算算自己会不会吃亏。 感情里最让人心寒的,不是没钱,也不是日子过得苦,而是你以为自己找到了依靠,最后才发现,对方只是在权衡利弊。 其实,女孩子在外面打拼,真的没有想象中那么容易。白天要面对工作和生活的压力,晚上一个人回到房间,有时候连…
❤6👍2🤡1
马达加斯加与美国签署司法合作协议,联手打击跨国网络诈骗,13处诈骗中心已被捣毁 据11月9日马达加斯加媒体报道,马达加斯加司法部长Fanirisoa Ernaivo于11月5日在华盛顿会见美国哥伦比亚特区联邦检察官Jeanine Ferris Pirro。双方重点讨论了跨国网络诈骗案件的调查与司法协作。 美国方面表示,在马达加斯加当局与美国联邦调查局(FBI)的合作下,当地已有 13处网络诈骗中心被捣毁。此前的联合执法行动还查获超过3200件电子设备。 Jeanine Ferris Pirro肯定马达加斯加在打击网络诈骗方面采取的刑事追责措施,并鼓励该国继续加强执法力度,为非洲其他国家提供合作经验。 此次签署的合作备忘录涉及司法经验交流、信息共享及跨国犯罪打击等领域。双方还讨论了涉案人员移交美国接受司法处理的问题。 马达加斯加与美国表示,将继续深化司法合作,共同追查跨国犯罪网络及其资金流向,进一步打击网络诈骗犯罪。 …
❤3
国际刑警组织展开跨国打击行动,262人被捕,涉及16个国家 11月10日,国际刑警组织(INTERPOL)公布一项跨国联合执法行动成果。此次行动于10月5日至8日期间展开,联合欧洲刑警组织及16个国家的执法机构,重点打击非法移民偷渡、人口贩运、伪造证件及跨国有组织犯罪。 行动期间,各国执法部门共逮捕262人,并启动434宗新调查,发现109名疑似人口贩运受害者,同时查获或识别1715名非法移民。 其中,摩洛哥执法部门拦截一艘载有70人的船只,当中包括30名未成年人。塞内加尔与毛里塔尼亚执法部门则展开跨境合作,拦截一艘载有80人的木船,并逮捕3名涉嫌组织偷渡的人员。 国际刑警组织表示,此次行动旨在打击利用海上运输路线从事非法移民活动的犯罪网络,同时加强各国执法部门之间的情报共享与联合调查。 有关部门将继续追查涉案犯罪组织,进一步调查人口贩运及非法移民活动背后的组织网络。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清…
👍1
🇻🇳越南越南准备放宽签证!拟推出最长1年多次入境签证,远程办公和长期旅居外国人有望受益! 11月8日消息,越南政府计划进一步放宽外国人入境及居留政策,重点吸引远程办公人员、长期旅居游客和医疗旅游人群。11月7日,越南政府向国会提交旅游业发展特别政策草案,考虑为符合条件的外国人提供更加灵活的签证及居留安排。 更值得关注的是,有国会议员建议试行最长有效期1年的多次入境旅游签证,让外国人可以在签证有效期内多次往返越南。 🔔订阅东南亚大事件:@tp111 ☎️ 投稿澄清爆料:@Y9527F
❤5👍2👌1
#币安重要通知:与特定加密货币平台进行交易的相关事项 这是一般性公告,此处提及的产品和服务可能不适用于您所在的地区。 鉴于美国金融犯罪执法局(FinCEN)近期将MEXC列为“重大洗钱关注对象”(Primary Money Laundering Concern),币安将无法继续处理涉及上述认定所涵盖的加密资产服务提供商及平台的交易,具体包括以下实体: MEXC Global Limited MEXC Estonia OÜ GIDA Technology AG MXC Global Ltd MEXC Global Foundation Ltd MEXC Singapore Pte Ltd MEXC (Comoros) Ltd MEXC MEXC Global MEX Global Ltd MX Global LTD MEX Exchange(曾用名) MEXC 其他关联方或关联实体 因此,请勿通过币安直接或间接向上述实体转…
😢4❤2
Showing the 12 most recent of 1,966 posts we hold for @tp111. 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.
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.
@tp111 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.
We ourselves saw each of these resolve to a real page at some point before it went vacant — a genuine, evidenced change, not an inference from absence.
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 23 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 41 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 November 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“东南亚头条大事件” (@tp111), 45,741 subscribers as measured 11 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/tp111.
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.