online>
👍1

Channel
@unamazed
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
839subscribers
+75 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002750641086 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @unamazed |
| Created | Between 1 June 2025 and 30 September 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 | 6 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 5 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/unamazed |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 5 Sept 2026, 04:57 | 839 | +12 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 02:34 | 827 | +7 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 13:54 | 820 | +30 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 08:18 | 790 | +22 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 15:00 | 768 | +4 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 04:31 | 764 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 23 February 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 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 29 July 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
145 reactions across 17 posts, in 2 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 57.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👎 | 83 | 57.2% | |
| 👍 | 62 | 42.8% |
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 17 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 145 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 23 February 2026 to 29 July 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 @unamazed. 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 20 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 23 February 2026 to 29 July 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.
online>
👍1
*temp ad*
The BEST P1 / Call Center infra to exist => @C3Center @C3CenterBot DM @SwissC3 for a trial (POF Needed)
👍2
Also I forgot to mention, if any of these @s were bought innocently, which is definitely a possibility, get in contact with me and I'll amend these details when proven otherwise. Threatening me with "messaging Pavel himself" is not gonna work
👎9👍8
The phone number for the @carl also owned the @serine, which went from a puppet address of @ledgers to a puppet address of @clark, (two known scammers, could be the same guy.) Which bought a phone number from @nine to make the account. If you look at @carl's history, the @ and number were both provided by a @ledgers address. So, very likely @cashforcrypto or any other @s surrounding @carl are just scamming as well. …
👎18👍16
And yes, the phone number linked to the @carl telegram account is a puppet address for @clark, the other famous prolific scammer.
👎14👍3
Be very cautious of dealing with any of the people with frequent interaction with his addresses. They all have some connection to prolific scammers. @hoffman @carl @thewhalechat
👎12👍3
@ledgertransfer / @ledgertransfers / @ledgers / @ClavOGU new @ is apparently @washer and he's operating under the new channel @employing. This is very obvious for a few reasons: 1 >> he's using the same anime guy in all his advertising and pictures. No one else on tele uses that dude idk why he keeps using it, its obvious. 2 >> He has me contacted for some reason stupidly with his anon phone number attached. After…
👎11👍2
By the way, update on this issue, Confronting @appletree41 again, he said that he 'accidentally' deleted my dms with him conspicuously after addressing a DWC on him. Okay—then he said that he for sure has the data and that I don't have the connections or knowledge to say otherwise. Okay—So I asked "what about emails in the data that genuinely don't exist", he told me that they DO (??) and to go call the numbers inst…
👎2
I was approached by @appletree41 to escrow a data deal. Deal went fine, I was prompted to pay the broker, and nothing came of it for 15 days. After closing GC, 15 days later (get your slow jokes out), buyer DM'd me saying @appletree41 scammed. The data was junk, AI generated, and useless, making these claims saying they didn't open the data they bought until SIXTEEN DAYS AFTER PAYING OUT. While this is completely hi…
👎4
@Ledgertransfer/@ledgertransfers/@ledgers new @ is apparently @ClavOGU and he's STILL running the same scam. Please remember, he doesn't do anything he actually says he does. He stays rich by stealing your money. And if he offers MM its likely a fake MM that will scam you (Read the post below what I just replied to.)
👎2
Btw, @cheered has been moved. Join if you want
👎2
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @unamazed. 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.
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.
@unamazed named 7 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.
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.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
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.
“Scrizon's Announcements” (@unamazed), 839 subscribers as measured 5 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/unamazed.
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.