Original CryptoSignalsReview dataset research
Why 98.4% of the Provider Dataset Is Telegram-Labeled
Telegram appears in nearly every platform label in the snapshot. This report explains the source bias behind that number and the identity, continuity, impersonation, and evidence checks it makes necessary.
See what the percentage meansNo signup, payment, wallet connection, or credentials are required.
98.4% of platform labels.
60.1% of Telegram-labeled rows lack a stored Telegram URL.
39.3% have a populated Telegram URL.
Direct answer
3,150 of 3,200 records mention Telegram in the platform label, but only 1,257 of those rows contain a stored Telegram URL. The remaining 1,893, or 60.1% of Telegram-labeled rows, retain classification context without a direct Telegram route field. Neither number estimates Telegram’s share of the global crypto signal market. The gap reflects source and importer design, and it makes route identity, handle continuity, admin changes, private-room migration, and message preservation first-class checks.
Platform labels overlap
A provider can mention Telegram and Web, Telegram and WhatsApp, or Telegram and Cornix. The counts below therefore do not sum to 3,200. They answer whether a platform term appears in the normalized label, not whether the provider is active, official, public, or safe.
| Platform term | Records mentioning term | Share of inventory | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Telegram | 3,150 | 98.4% | Includes channels, groups, mixed web routes, and Cornix-linked labels. |
| Cornix | 90 | 2.8% | Marketplace or automation context; not performance verification. |
| Web | 40 | 1.3% | Website presence in the label; not proof of entity ownership. |
| 32 | 1% | May overlap Telegram and web records. | |
| Discord | 24 | 0.8% | Small seeded source family in this snapshot. |
Platform label versus stored route field
| Platform term | Label mentions | Direct route field | Label and route | Label without route | Route without label |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Telegram | 3,150 | 1,257 | 1,257 | 1,893 | 0 |
| Discord | 24 | 6 | 6 | 18 | 0 |
| 32 | 1 | 1 | 31 | 0 | |
| Web | 40 | 1 | 1 | 39 | 0 |
A platform label is a category assigned to the provider record. A direct route field is a stored provider-specific URL. The two units answer different questions. All 1,257 populated Telegram URL fields occur on Telegram-labeled rows, but 1,893 labeled rows have no captured Telegram URL. Discord has 18 label-only rows, WhatsApp has 31, and Web has 39.
A label without a route does not prove the provider lacks that platform outside the dataset. A populated route does not prove current ownership, official authorization, or continuity. This cross-tab measures stored metadata agreement only. It should not be converted into an activity rate, impersonation rate, platform quality score, or market-share estimate.
Why the source mix creates this concentration
RealTelegram category records contribute 1,870 rows and TGStat category or group-rating records contribute 1,153. Cornix contributes 85 more records centered on Telegram-compatible automation. These discovery channels explain most of the platform result before any provider-specific conclusion is considered.
A directory is useful for finding candidate names and aliases. It is weaker for proving who owns a channel, whether an admin changed, which invite link was active at purchase, whether a copied message was edited, or whether a private VIP room is connected to the public route. That is why the report separates the source URL from direct provider-route fields.
Five Telegram-specific proof problems
Handle and invite drift
Public handles can change, private invite links can expire, and clones can differ by one character. Preserve the exact route, account identifier, capture date, and the independently verified path used to reach it.
Channel, group, and bot are different objects
A broadcast channel can publish alerts, a discussion group can host replies, and a bot can handle payment or automation. Treating all three as one identity can hide where a claim or transaction actually occurred.
Admin continuity is not visible from membership alone
A large audience does not prove the current admin is the historical operator. Ownership claims need continuity records, cross-linked official routes, and dated support or payment evidence.
Edits and deletions change performance reconstruction
Signal evaluation needs original timestamps, edited-message state, deleted calls, moved stops, partial exits, and unresolved positions. A later clean screenshot can omit the evidence needed to reproduce what followers could act on.
Private migrations break the public evidence chain
A public channel can direct readers to a private room, bot, reseller, or different payment identity. Save each transition. Do not assume the final room inherits the public channel’s identity or terms.
Beginner route check
- Start from an independently verified website, app listing, or known public route.
- Compare the exact handle character by character.
- Record whether the destination is a channel, group, bot, or private invite.
- Save the offer, price, refund terms, payment recipient, and support identity together.
- Stop if credentials, seed phrases, withdrawal permissions, or rushed payment are requested.
Advanced archive check
Export or preserve the message ID, timestamp, edit state, symbol, venue, entry rule, invalidation, stop, targets, leverage assumptions, fee basis, and every outcome update. Match those records to follower-side exchange fills before calculating performance. Keep bot latency and exchange execution separate from the alert itself.
Dataset boundary
This is a census of records in the CryptoSignalsReview candidate inventory at snapshot 2026-07-05, not a representative survey of every crypto signal provider or every messaging channel. Directory inclusion is discovery evidence only. Missing fields stay missing, platform labels can overlap, and no count proves provider quality, legality, profitability, or safety.
Public verification vocabulary: CSR Verified or CSR Unverified only. In this frozen snapshot, 0 records were CSR Verified and 3,200 were CSR Unverified. “Listed for review” and “quarantined” are retained only as historical internal workflow fields from 2026-07-05; neither is a third public verification status.
Frozen source: 5dcd30b2b1a0da9bacbaeec08244190dae19a49f. Unit: one unique CSR provider slug. Position: coverage is not endorsement.
Official context sources
These sources explain why identity, disclosure, complete performance evidence, and resistance to urgency matter. They do not validate any record in the CSR dataset.
- ESMA: finfluencer factsheet
Transparency, accuracy, paid-promotion disclosure, and recommendation boundaries.
- Investor.gov: social media and investment fraud
Identity verification, impersonation, testimonials, urgency, and social-media limitations.
- CFTC: virtual-currency pump-and-dump advisory
Messaging-app tips, anonymity, urgency, thin liquidity, and market-manipulation risk.
Continue the transparency research
- Crypto Signal Provider Transparency Report 2026
Original analysis of 3,200 crypto signal provider candidate records: platform concentration, binary verification, historical workflow, sources, and missing evidence.
- What 3,200 Provider Records Reveal About Missing Proof
Why the 3,200-record CSR inventory contains zero verified providers and zero reviewed result sheets, and what evidence would change those statuses.
- Why 683 Records Entered CSR’s Historical Quality Quarantine
Analyze CSR’s 683-record historical internal quality-quarantine cohort, including project communities, airdrop groups, weak names, and non-signal candidates.
- Crypto Signal Provider Name Collision Report 2026
First-party analysis of repeated provider names across 3,200 records, with exact and Unicode-normalized counts, source context, and identity limits.
- Crypto Signal Provider Alias Coverage and Entity Resolution
Audit alias-field coverage across 3,200 provider records, including importer patterns, shared values, source-family gaps, and display-name matches.