GM Degens! What if a token’s team can create more tokens whenever they want? That’s something worth checking before you buy. ChainAware Token Audit checks whether a token’s mint function has an enforceable supply cap. No cap doesn’t automatically mean it’s a scam. It means the ability to increase supply exists without a fixed ceiling. One of 130 checks. 👉 chainaware.ai/token-audit https://x.com/ChainAware/stat…

Channel
ChainAware Announcements
@ChainAwareNews
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
10,449subscribers
-138 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1002367234605 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ChainAwareNews |
| Created | Between 1 September 2024 and 31 March 2025 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 5 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 25 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 5 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ChainAwareNews |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 5 Sept 2026, 02:01 | 10,449 | -1 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 06:25 | 10,450 | -3 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 01:35 | 10,453 | -4 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 04:16 | 10,457 | -3 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 04:15 | 10,460 | -3 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 01:27 | 10,463 | -2 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 21:46 | 10,465 | -2 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 20:57 | 10,467 | -1 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 18:12 | 10,468 | -5 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 19:26 | 10,473 | -3 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 03:14 | 10,476 | -1 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 18:37 | 10,477 | -3 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 14:07 | 10,480 | -1 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 15:53 | 10,481 | -4 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 16:57 | 10,485 | -7 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 13:47 | 10,492 | -7 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 20:45 | 10,499 | -1 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 14:17 | 10,500 | -10 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 16:37 | 10,510 | -15 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 16:52 | 10,525 | first reading |
Engagement
32 posts held, back to 20 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 38 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 0.332%
- avg views ÷ 10,449 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 34.7
- 20 posts measured
- Reaction rate
- 74.1%
- reactions ÷ views · ER floor
- Posts in window
- 20
- of 32 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. It is computed over the 4 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 28 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 32 (20 July 2026 – 28 August 2026) |
| Views total | 694 |
| Reactions total | 103 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 29 Aug 2026, 14:45 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
188 reactions across 10 posts, in 7 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 22.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 42 | 22.3% | |
| 🎉 | 38 | 20.2% | |
| 👍 | 37 | 19.7% | |
| 🔥 | 35 | 18.6% | |
| 👏 | 31 | 16.5% | |
| 💯 | 3 | 1.60% | |
| 😍 | 2 | 1.06% |
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 32 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 188 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 32 most recent posts we hold, published 20 July 2026 to 28 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.
Recent posts
You can buy a token because it’s trending. You can buy it because the chart looks good. You can buy it because everyone is talking about it. Or you can spend 60 seconds checking what the contract can actually do. We combined CoinGecko + CoinMarketCap and audited 15,008 EVM tokens. 57.7% came back HIGH RISK. DYOR should mean more than looking at the chart. 👉https://chainaware.ai/blog/token-audit-15000-coingecko…
1,000+ installs on @ClawHubAI. Not hype. Not a waitlist. Actual developers installing and running ChainAware inside their agents. Fraud detection. Rug pull risk. AML checks. Agent Trust Score. Behavioral prediction. One skill. 14 capabilities. 8 chains. 👉clawhub.ai/chainaware/skills/chainaware-behavioral-prediction #AIAgents #DeFAI #MCP #Web3Analytics https://x.com/ChainAware/status/2092326073610408142 Kindly l…
🚨 ChainAware.ai x Inflectiv 🤝 We’re excited to announce that ChainAware’s Prediction MCP is now live on Inflectiv. This brings ChainAware’s wallet intelligence directly into the Inflectiv agent ecosystem, giving AI agents more context before they interact with wallets. Agents can now access signals including: 🔹 Fraud probability 🔹 Rug pull risk 🔹 AML & OFAC exposure 🔹 Wallet behavioral intelligence 🔹 Token commun…
🎉28👍22❤19🔥16👏15
We checked Giggle Mascot ($MAX) through ChainAware Token Audit. At first glance, the liquidity looks reassuring: 🔒 99.99% LP locked 💧 ~$143.5K liquidity But the audit also flagged suspicious transfer mechanics. That’s why checking one metric isn’t enough. A token can have strong liquidity and still have other parts of the contract worth investigating. 👉 chainaware.ai/token-audit https://x.com/ChainAware/status/…
The Sandbox's $SAND token on Base was just hacked. Millions minted from thin air via a forged LayerZero message (not LayerZero bug). We ran our token audit on this contract. Here's what it found — and what every OFT deployer should know. 🧵 👉https://chainaware.ai/token-audit/base/0xac531eb26ca1d21b85126de8fb87e80e09002dcf More info 👉https://x.com/chainaware/status/2091166094882931173
👍1
If you’re evaluating an AI trading agent, where do you start? Returns? Wallet history? Who controls it? Whether it’s actually autonomous? A new study analyzed 1,035 DeFi investment agents and found that even having a public wallet doesn’t necessarily make autonomous execution verifiable. That’s why investors need to look beyond the headline. ChainAware Agent Trust Score gives you an on-chain trust assessment by l…
If you’re evaluating an AI trading agent, returns aren’t the only thing worth checking. Ask: Who controls the wallet? Who funded it? What does the owner’s history look like? Are there meaningful risk signals? ChainAware Agent Trust Score gives you an on-chain trust assessment before you interact. 👉 https://chainaware.ai/agent-trust-score https://x.com/ChainAware/status/2090541991322870022 Kindly like, comment an…
$720M+ extracted through rug pulls in 2026. Week 32 added another $34.9M. • 7,839 rug pull events • 11,967 new pool mints • 65.5% rug-to-mint ratio • $119.8M removed by creators Fraud and activity both moved higher this week. Read the full Week 32 report: 👉 chainaware.ai/blog/rug-pull-news-week-32-2026
🔥1
15,652 new ERC-8004 AI agents registered in Week 32. That’s 26.8% fewer than the previous week. But the bigger change was underneath it. Unique owner wallets jumped 76.3% to 14,834, bringing agents per owner down from 2.54 to 1.06. At the same time, the median Agent Trust Score jumped 160.5% to 521, moving back into the Provisional tier. Fewer registrations. More owners. A much higher median trust score. 👉 http…
57.7% of 15,008 EVM token contracts came back High Risk. We got this result after combining EVM tokens listed on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap and running them through ChainAware Token Audit. The full breakdown: 🔴 57.7% High Risk 🟡 24.9% Suspicious 🟢 16.3% Clean 🍯 1.0% Honeypot That’s a pretty uncomfortable picture. 👉 chainaware.ai/blog/token-audit-15000-coingecko-coinmarketcap-2026 https://x.com/ChainAware/statu…
👍1
An AI agent can be registered. Its wallet can be verified. And you can still know very little about the history behind it. That’s the gap Agent Trust Score is designed to address. It looks at signals around the agent, including owner behavior, feeder address, fraud history and on-chain activity. Because knowing who an agent is isn’t the same as knowing what its history says about it. 👉 https://chainaware.ai/age…
Showing the 12 most recent of 32 posts we hold for @ChainAwareNews. 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.
Mentions
Named by 1 registered channel — 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.
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 5 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“ChainAware Announcements” (@ChainAwareNews), 10,449 subscribers as measured 5 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ChainAwareNews.
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.