EXPLOITS TARGETING COSMOS EVM HAVE RESULTED IN DRAINING $17M+ Between August 20–23, a cluster of bugs with the staking precompile and vesting accounts in Cosmos/EVM got exploited. Three chains went down in three days: MANTRA, TAC, and KiiChain, with over $17M in losses. (Note: This is not the same as ASA-2026-002 from Jan 2026 — the ICS20 nested execution issue that cost Saga EVM ~$7M. Different code paths, differen…

Channel
Hacknews
@cryptoontele
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
17,125subscribers
-1,765 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 | -1001470846821 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Usernames | @cryptoontele @toncommunity |
| Created | 31 May 2020 — measured — dated from the channel’s first post |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 19 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 32 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 19 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/cryptoontele |
Topic
Hacking & security — 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 10 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 94% 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
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 19 Sept 2026, 00:40 | 17,125 | -36 |
| 16 Sept 2026, 15:40 | 17,161 | -30 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 21:01 | 17,191 | -28 |
| 13 Sept 2026, 05:42 | 17,219 | -45 |
| 11 Sept 2026, 08:00 | 17,264 | -58 |
| 8 Sept 2026, 13:58 | 17,322 | -105 |
| 5 Sept 2026, 05:40 | 17,427 | -37 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 10:16 | 17,464 | -32 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 06:49 | 17,496 | -55 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 03:44 | 17,551 | -56 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 05:16 | 17,607 | -46 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 05:04 | 17,653 | -42 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 04:28 | 17,695 | -46 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 02:47 | 17,741 | -51 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 00:33 | 17,792 | -38 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 00:53 | 17,830 | -31 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 01:08 | 17,861 | -60 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 15:07 | 17,921 | -60 |
| 22 Aug 2026, 00:23 | 17,981 | -72 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 17:37 | 18,053 | first reading |
Engagement
26 posts held, back to 31 May 2020 — the reader has reached the start of this channel’s public history, so this is the full archive Telegram still exposes. Read across 50 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 0.169%
- avg views ÷ 17,125 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 29.0
- 1 post measured
- Reaction rate
- —
- this channel exposes no reaction counts
- Posts in window
- 1
- of 26 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 25 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 26 (31 May 2020 – 25 August 2026) |
| Views total | 29 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 25 Aug 2026, 23:57 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
20 reactions across 9 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 45.0% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 9 | 45.0% | |
| 🤨 | 4 | 20.0% | |
| 🙉 | 3 | 15.0% | |
| 🤝 | 3 | 15.0% | |
| 😨 | 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 10 of the 26 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 20 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 26 most recent posts we hold, published 31 May 2020 to 25 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.
Telegram Stars
- Stars received
- 8
- across the posts below
- Posts paid on
- 5
- of 25 we hold a reading for · 20%
- Most on one post
- 4
- single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @cryptoontele. 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 26 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 31 May 2020 to 25 August 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
BREAKING: TERM FINANCE LOST ABOUT $8.5M BECAUSE OF AN EXPLOIT The attacker bought a bunch of the DAO's governance tokens since they were cheap and not many people had them, which let him control the votes. Then, he passed his own proposals and took over the vaults. He even funded both his wallets for fees using Tornado Cash. • 0xa908b3472d76e7744baB0A5911768a4a6300612B • 0x686457a7468B9B31c5dbA43b1b16077B48520691…
BREAKING: AN EXPLOIT OF $49B+ HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ON $SAND The Sandbox confirmed a bridge exploit where attackers minted unbacked $SAND on Base and BNB Smart Chain. Bridging on Base and BSC has been temporarily suspended as the team investigates. @dwcnetwork
BREAKING: CRYPTO INVESTOR LOST $2M AFTER COPYING THE WRONG WALLET ADDRESS A crypto investor experienced a significant loss of $2 million due to an address poisoning attack, resulting in the funds being sent to a fraudulent wallet controlled by an attacker. @dwcnetwork
BREAKING: ALL DUEL WITHDRAWALS ARE NOW BEING FLAGGED AS HIGH RISK This implies that any user receiving funds from Duel[dot]com or having previously interacted with Duel addresses will have their assets frozen upon transfer to a CEX or any platform possessing freezing capabilities. @dwcnetwork
THE FBI MAY HAVE IDENTIFIED THE HACKER BEHIND COLDCARD WHO STOLE OVER 1,000 BTC Block's investigation apparently traced the attacker's activity to a paid account at a major blockchain data provider, and their internal logs closely matched the theft pattern. The investigation's still going on, and the findings are being shared with the right authorities. According to Bitcoin Magazine @dwcnetwork
A VULTISIG USER LOST $1.2M TO A SOCIAL ENGINEERING SCAM An individual posing as a support representative contacted the victim, subsequently gaining access to their digital wallet and illicitly obtaining over $1.2 million. @dwcnetwork
CRYPTO HARDWARE WALLET SAFEPAL SUFFERED A DATA BREACH People affected by the breach are already getting social engineering calls from attackers pretending to be SafePal support. @dwcnetwork
BREAKING: TREZOR SUFFERED A DATA BREACH The wallet company reported that the personal data of 11,742 customers was compromised during the breach. @dwcnetwork
⚠️ A victim fell for a social engineering scam twice The same person had previously experienced a loss of $24 million in 2023. After dedicating years rebuilding their assets, they were unfortunately targeted once more, resulting in an additional loss of $25 million. @dwcnetwork
⚠️ JUST IN: Coinsbuy wallets reportedly had over $7.9M drained on TRON and Ethereum The attacker started laundering funds into Monero via exchanges. Six figures were frozen, and Coinsbuy paused then resumed deposits and withdrawals. @dwcnetwork
❤1
⚠️ Trezor user lost their life savings after clicking a phishing site in a Google ad. A fake Trezor site, pushed through Google search, supposedly tricked someone into giving up their recovery seed. Attackers then drained the wallet. @dwcnetwork
Showing the 12 most recent of 26 posts we hold for @cryptoontele. 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.
Mentions
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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
- Dead references
- 2
- handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
- Evidenced gone
- 1
- we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
- Never seen alive
- 1
- vacant every time we have ever looked
@cryptoontele named 2 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.
Evidenced gone
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.
named in 57 posts, 8 August 2026 – 25 August 2026 · confirmed gone 23 August 2026 (two independent sightings — see how we confirm a dead handle)evidenced
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
named in 6 posts, 8 August 2026 – 18 August 2026
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 19 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Hacknews” (@cryptoontele), 17,125 subscribers as measured 19 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cryptoontele.
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.