Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Telegram business worth millions: Rada estimates top channels' revenue at $20,000 per day

A temporary parliamentary investigative commission convened the SBU, the State Tax Service (DPS), the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) and the cyber police — they are discussing not only advertising but also tax and information security. Why this matters for Ukraine’s economy and politics — in a concise analysis.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 10, 2026 · 2 min read

Telegram business worth millions: Rada estimates top channels' revenue at $20,000 per day
Засідання парламентської ТСК 10 березня 2026 року (Фото: скриншот з відео)

What it's about

During a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada's temporary investigative commission, Member of Parliament Viktoriya Siumar gave an estimated revenue figure for popular anonymous Telegram channels — up to $20,000 per day for a channel with an audience of 400,000–1 million subscribers.

"If you take the feed of a single Telegram channel, there are roughly 40 to 140 messages a day, it can be up to 200. And I think this needs to be analyzed, because it's a business"

— Viktoriya Siumar, Member of Parliament, member of the Committee on Anti‑Corruption Policy

How this figure was obtained

The explanation is simple: number of messages per day × share of paid content × pricing packages. According to Siumar, roughly every 5th–10th message may be paid, and the cost of packages for political or commercial promotion is estimated at $10,000–$40,000. Thus, a channel with a large audience can theoretically generate millions of hryvnias per month.

Who attended the meeting and why it matters

Representatives of the SBU, State Tax Service, Bureau of Economic Security, cyber police were invited — the lineup speaks for itself: the issue goes beyond media regulation and moves into the realm of economic and information security.

Main risks: unreported income and tax evasion, use of unlabelled advertising for political influence, and the lack of mechanisms to hold anonymous administrators accountable. This is not only a media problem — it's a matter of resources and public trust in institutions.

Context and confirmation

Earlier, NABU director Semen Kryvonos stated that the bureau has information about the owners of anonymous channels. In January 2026, Member of Parliament Yaroslav Zheleznyak named probable owners of five popular anonymous Telegram channels and asked law enforcement to investigate their sources of income.

What this means for the country

When a large information platform operates as a business without transparent tax and advertising mechanisms, it creates both fiscal and informational risks. For the state, this is an issue on three levels: effectiveness of tax control, prevention of political manipulation, and ensuring cyber security.

Experts point out that solutions must be comprehensive: from proper tax inspections to regulation of advertising and improvement of mechanisms for holding anonymous content creators accountable.

Conclusion

Now the commission's tone contains not only concern but also a call to concrete action — coordination between the SBU, State Tax Service, Bureau of Economic Security and cyber police must turn estimates into verification results. The issue is not only about money: it is about transparency of the information environment and protection from unlawful influence on public opinion. Whether institutions can quickly turn declarations into real decisions is the next test of the state's ability to respond to new challenges.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026