Channel

PINK PROXY | پروکسی

@PinkProxy

On this record: Topic · Observations · Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · View velocity · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Posts recorded as deleted · Polls · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Domains linked from posts · Cite this entry

2,438,883subscribers

+348,815 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among the largest entries.

Register entry

Topic

Gambling & betting — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 8 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 83% 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.

Observations

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.

Recorded under the keys clone_copy · clone_mutual · clone_source · view_reaction_decoupling, last confirmed 5 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is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn.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.

Also posting the same content

This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 463 other registered channels, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.

Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.

413 more channels are in this same group but not listed individually here.

Growth

Engagement

38,322 posts held, back to 4 June 2018 — the reader has reached the start of this channel’s public history, so this is the full archive Telegram still exposes. Read across 5,944 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days

6.73%

avg views ÷ 2,438,883 subscribers

Avg views / post

164,000

660 posts measured

Reaction rate

1.94%

reactions ÷ views · ER floor

Posts in window

660

of 38,322 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.

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.

What this channel posts

Video runtime

4h 51m

Average length

43s

Measured directly from 402 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.

View velocity

How fast this channel’s own posts pick up views, from re-reading them repeatedly in the hours and days after they were published rather than the single reading most entries on this register get. Coverage is early and only a small minority of channels hold it at all — a gap in this section means the post has not been re-read again yet, not that nothing happened.

Computed from 672 of this channel’s own posts over the last 30 days (1 of the 24-hour readings behind this are interpolated, not measured directly): across 631 of this channel’s own posts with a clear reading, a typical one reaches half of its last-observed view count within 3.5 hours of being posted; a typical post has already reached 27.8% of its 24-hour view count within the first hour, and 72.5% within the first six; the median 24-hour reach across those posts is 140,000 views — 5.74% of this channel’s own subscriber count (90th percentile 167,000).

Curve is every standard checkpoint we hold a reading for (+1h, +3h, +6h, +12h, +24h, +48h, +7d after posting) — measured where a real reading landed close enough to that age, interpolated where it did not but readings on both sides let one be worked out between them. Nothing is ever extrapolated past the last real reading. Latest reading is the newest view and reaction count we hold for the post, side by side, so a gap between how views and reactions moved is visible without following it into the Observations section above. 24h reach is that one checkpoint on its own, labelled the same way. Half of last-observed views is the age at which a post’s view count crossed half of the highest figure we have read for it so far — an upper bound when the very first reading was already past half (we cannot see the actual crossing), and biased low while the post is still climbing, since “half of final” is dividing by a number that has not finished growing yet. Both caveats are printed inline wherever they apply, never silently dropped.

Reaction mix

3,098,534 reactions across 1,000 posts, in 36 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 42.7% of them.

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 1,000 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 3,098,534 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 20 September 2026 to 5 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.

Telegram Stars

Stars received

391

across the posts below

Posts paid on

71

of 1,000 we hold a reading for · 7%

Most on one post

111

single highest reading

A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @PinkProxy. 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 20 September 2026 to 5 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.

Recent posts

Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 76 of 660 posts held from the last 30 days (11.5%) 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).

Showing the 12 most recent of 38,322 posts we hold for @PinkProxy. 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.

Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.

Posts edited after publishing

@PinkProxy edited 57 posts after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.

An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.

First edit seen

7 August 2026

Most recent edit

5 November 2026

Posts recorded as deleted after publishing

We recorded 35 posts on @PinkProxy as deleted — posts this register held that were missing from the channel’s public page on two separate reads, taken from different network addresses at least an hour apart.

A deletion is not wrongdoing. This register can see that a post it held is no longer on the channel’s public page, and when — not why. Expired ad placements, reposts, rotating links and corrections all look the same. This is a count of recorded detections, not an exact total: it misses deletions we could not see, because only a post we held and later re-read inside the page can be seen to go, and it may include a small number of wrong records. How this is measured.

First seen missing

9 August 2026

Most recent seen missing

29 October 2026

Median time before seen missing

12 hours

Seen missing in the last 30 days

12

Polls

The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 1,000 most recent posts we hold (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 20 September 2026 to 5 November 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

Handles this channel named that no longer answer

Dead references

4

handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today

Evidenced gone

0

we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point

Never seen alive

4

vacant every time we have ever looked

@PinkProxy named 4 handles 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.

Never seen alive

References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.

Domains linked from posts

23 domains this channel’s own posts have linked to, measured by scanning the post bodies themselves — not the channel’s description, which is the separate Declared links section below when this entry has one. Appearing here is not a claim about who runs the linked site or why the channel linked to it; an advertisement, a news citation and a malicious link all leave the same kind of row.

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

“PINK PROXY | پروکسی” (@PinkProxy), 2,438,883 subscribers as measured 5 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/PinkProxy.

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.