Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for JESUSisLORD Validator

Channel

JESUSisLORD Validator

@JESUSisLORDValidator

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

784subscribers

+1 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001711152287
TypeChannel
Username@JESUSisLORDValidator
CreatedBetween 1 December 2021 and 30 April 2023 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded7 August 2026
Last confirmed live17 September 2026
Measurements held7
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 17 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/JESUSisLORDValidator

Topic

Religion — 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 20 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 91% 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 why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

7837917877 August 2026 — 783 subscribers7 August 2026 — 783 subscribers7 August 2026 — 784 subscribers16 August 2026 — 787 subscribers23 August 2026 — 791 subscribers8 September 2026 — 787 subscribers17 September 2026 — 784 subscribers7847 August 202617 September 2026
7 measurements spanning 41 days, net +1. 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 782–792 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
17 Sept 2026, 07:02784-3
8 Sept 2026, 10:40787-4
23 Aug 2026, 06:45791+4
16 Aug 2026, 03:26787+3
7 Aug 2026, 20:52784+1
7 Aug 2026, 09:17783no change
7 Aug 2026, 08:55783first reading

Engagement

20 posts held, back to 22 November 2025the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 page of 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 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 5 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

746 reactions across 20 posts, in 12 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 59.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
👍44659.8%
20327.2%
🔥263.49%
🎉182.41%
🕊152.01%
🙏141.88%
💯121.61%
👀30.402%
👏30.402%
🥰30.402%
😎20.268%
🐳10.134%

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 20 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 746 reactions 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 22 November 2025 to 5 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

5 Aug 2026, 13:03 UTC191 views17 reactionsread 7 August 2026

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2084985370924679599

👍17

5 Aug 2026, 13:03 UTC191 views12 reactionsread 7 August 2026

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2084974003870216534

👍12

2 Aug 2026, 12:26 UTC361 views37 reactionsread 7 August 2026

https://x.com/ForTheCross_CH/status/2083891250508206492

22🔥8👍4🙏3

2 Aug 2026, 11:54 UTC341 views53 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Thank you everyone who supported my validators and the 1.5% tax proposal. The proposal passed and has been officially implemented on-chain. Praise God! 🙏

27👍12🎉10🔥4

27 Jul 2026, 12:22 UTC520 views39 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted yes on LUNC governance proposal #12223, which a community member brought to vote to try to implement the 1.5% on-chain tax.

👍295🙏3🎉1🐳1

28 Jun 2026, 05:22 UTC802 views43 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted no on LUNC proposal #12222 which is for funding to set-up Hyperlane, which would allow wrapped LUNC to be traded on other chains. I was not in support of the original proposal, as I don't support making fake LUNC on other chains. Also note there is a false validator low on the list with the name JESUSisLORD 3, which is not my validator.

👍374🙏2

2 May 2026, 00:06 UTC≈1,250 views35 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted yes for LUNC proposal #12221, which is a further chain upgrade from Orbit Labs to fix some issues which came up from the recent upgrade to Cosmos SDK 53.

👍2010🎉5

19 Apr 2026, 08:51 UTC≈1,440 views40 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted no on LUNC governance proposal #12219 for a USTC staking system. This proposal says that there will be no minting (unlike the one that came recently), but it still has the issue of when Vegas brought this proposal earlier, that there is no suitable source of funding for staking rewards for USTC. We already need to focus on improving LUNC staking APR, we don't also need a seperate staking system for USTC

👍289🕊2👀1

9 Apr 2026, 12:34 UTC≈1,360 views45 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted yes for LUNC governance proposal #12218 for the chain upgrade to Cosmos SDK 53 by Orbit Labs. This has been long in the works and the chain halt and upgrade will take place around 17 April.

👍3312

3 Apr 2026, 08:58 UTC≈1,400 views67 reactionsread 7 August 2026

Thank the Lord our God Jesus Christ for His great salvation! God bless you all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope you are doing well. Christopher.

51🕊6🙏6🔥2🥰2

27 Mar 2026, 09:17 UTC≈1,520 views43 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted no with veto on proposal #12216. This is a proposal by Vegas for a USTC staking system, a proposal I voted against earlier for reasons including that there is no suitable funding source. This has not changed, but now Vegas is proposing we should mint USTC for 10% APR staking rewards, taking USTC from deflationary to inflationary. I am opposed to minting LUNC or USTC, and see any efforts towards minting U

24👍14💯4🥰1

15 Feb 2026, 00:11 UTC≈1,560 views41 reactionsread 7 August 2026

I have voted no with veto on proposal #12215, which proposes to adjust the tax split and lower burns from 0.4% to 0.1%, and increase funding to the community pool and oracle pool. I am firmly opposed to reducing burns and I support raising the burn tax.

👍28💯75🕊1

Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @JESUSisLORDValidator. 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.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

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.

Baby Doge 공지사항
@BabyDogeAnnKO · 82,931
Telegram ranks this channel #71 of 75 here — alongside 74 others — read 17 August 2026
Anuncios Baby Doge
@BabyDogeAnnES · 83,904
Telegram ranks this channel #73 of 74 here — alongside 73 others — read 17 August 2026

This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

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 17 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“JESUSisLORD Validator” (@JESUSisLORDValidator), 784 subscribers as measured 17 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/JESUSisLORDValidator.

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.