Brian Armstrong engagement report
@brian_armstrong - 4.0M followers on X
Measured over 42 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 24, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 1.2K interactions against 4.0M followers, an engagement rate of 0.029%. Measured over 42 original posts, its engagement rate beats 50% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 136K times each, and 0.866% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 3.39% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 4.3 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 42 posts sampled, 60% carry an image or video, 19% are part of a thread and 21% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 26K interactions, about 22x its own typical post.
Measured over 42 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 24, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
Brian Armstrong's engagement rate beats 50% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 44% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.029%, Brian Armstrong sits above the 25th percentile of the 204,491 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the below the median band, which runs 0.024% to 0.143%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.677% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 60% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 21% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 60% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 21% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 329 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Sep 16, 202622x their median
My thanks go to everyone who put so much effort into the CLARITY Act— across the Administration, Congress, investors, and innovators. Our collective conviction that America must continue to lead is indispensable. I have been unequivocal: with or without legislation, we will act decisively within the SEC’s statutory authority to deliver certainty for American investors and for the entrepreneurs shaping our technological future. Stay tuned.
- Sep 17, 202621x their median
>be me >discover effective altruism >apparently normal charity is inefficient >why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing >fair enough >buy mosquito nets >save lives >numbers look good >feel powerful >couple years later >someone asks an innocent question >why only count people alive today >huh >future people matter too >obviously >my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet >reasonable.jpg >keep following logic >what about their grandchildren >also yes >what about people in 500 years >sure >5000 years >why not >500 million years >starting to get weird but morality is morality >open calculator >humanity could survive for an astronomically long time >could colonize galaxy >could have trillions upon trillions of descendants >maybe digital people too >maybe simulated civilizations >maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds >calculator starts smoking >realize currently living humans are rounding error >8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta >future contains potentially 10^something people >can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets >new moral priority unlocked >protect the long-term future >stop thinking in units of "people helped" >start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved" >malaria? >terrible >but only kills existing humans >AI extinction could delete the entire light cone >nuclear war could permanently derail civilization >bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years >someone invents wrong constitution in 2140 >quadrillions suffer >better fund governance workshop now >friend says maybe we should improve hospitals >explain opportunity cost >friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people >explain scope sensitivity >friend stops inviting me to dinner >need to decide what to fund >easy >expected value >suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction >sounds tiny >but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives >multiply >mother of god >$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies >charity evaluation complete >someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from >expert judgement >which expert >us >how calibrated >extremely thoughtfully >reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative >still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude >epistemic robustness achieved >someone says maybe project doesn't work >assign 20% chance >still astronomical >maybe project makes problem worse >assign 5% chance >still astronomical >why 5 >because 30 felt pessimistic >publish 46-page report >contains seventeen sensitivity analyses >every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign >critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities >yes >that's literally why it's important >critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical >make probability smaller >critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong >make probability smaller again >critic begins rubbing temples >discover AI safety >perfect longtermist cause >AI might kill everyone >or create utopia >or seize galaxy >or tile universe with paperclips >or create billions of conscious software minds >finally a problem with numbers big enough for me >start AI safety nonprofit >mission: prevent dangerous AI >hire smartest people available >smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI >interesting >we must understand capabilities to understand safety >we must scale models to study alignment >we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first >we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong >we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous >outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies >complicated field >company releases stronger model >very concerned >company begins training even stronger model >extremely concerned >company raises $14 billion >concern reaches unprecedented levels >need to influence government >future is at stake >normal democratic process too slow >politicians don't understand exponential curves >public doesn't understand x-risk >experts must guide them >who counts as expert >people who understand x-risk >who understands x-risk >our friends >someone objects that this seems politically convenient >explain we're representing future generations >future generations unavailable for comment >develop concept of value lock-in >terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever >therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in >whose values >let's circle back >begin with impartial morality >end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want >beautiful arc >meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things >voting wrong >having parochial attachments >loving family more than strangers >caring about local community >getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible >evolutionary biases everywhere >explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted >except intuition that future digital people count >and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad >and intuition that our probability estimates are sane >and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future >those intuitions survived peer review >someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter >inefficient >could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher >think of all the simulated people you just killed >okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly >PR team says "future generations deserve a voice" >much better >journalist asks what longtermism means >say "future people matter" >everyone agrees >great >journalist asks what follows from that >well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures >journalist raises eyebrow >return to "future people matter" >motte has entered the chat >critic: of course future people matter >me: glad we agree >critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them >me: why do you hate our grandchildren >eventually notice uncomfortable implication >if future value dominates everything >then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future >education matters because future institutions >health matters because future productivity >democracy matters because future trajectory >human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy >see starving child >feel compassion >check spreadsheet >child's direct welfare contribution negligible >but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality >compassion restored >tell myself this is impartial altruism >one day assistant asks obvious question >"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?" >silence >open spreadsheet >increase column width >add confidence interval >assistant asks again >"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?" >stare into cosmic light cone >10^50 people staring back >none of them exist >none of them can tell me >none of them can falsify my assumptions >realize I have invented the perfect constituency >infinitely important >completely silent >and always represented by me
- Aug 19, 202612x their median
Vision board: 1. Strong bipartisan vote on CLARITY Sep 15th 2. Uptober 3. Next crypto bull run begins Just as the prophecy foretold
- Sep 15, 202611x their median
The CLARITY Act didn't advance in the Senate today, which was a disappointment. While it's possible bi-partisan conversations continue and it lives to fight another day, we can't wait on Congress anymore. The SEC and CFTC have the tools they need to create clear rules under existing authority, and I expect will begin working on this in earnest. So clarity is coming to crypto regardless. And of course GENIUS is already the law of the land for stablecoins, which is even more permissive on rewards. There were some concessions we made on CLARITY that were tough to swallow, so perhaps it's for the best. Crypto can't be uninvented. With clarity emerging through the regulators, we'll continue updating the financial system.
- Aug 20, 202611x their median
It’s time to make America the crypto capital of the world. @POTUS and the current administration have done an excellent job of moving us towards this. Now we need to get Clarity done. https://t.co/3S0nJH6YxH
- Aug 6, 20269.7x their median
The Senate has had CLARITY for a year. Since then, lawmakers have negotiated hundreds of pages of changes, reached agreement on SEC and CFTC nominations, and secured unprecedented ethics commitments. The crypto and banking industry have compromised as well. That’s how legislation is supposed to work. No one gets everything. Everyone gets most of what they need. At this point, the only thing left isn’t negotiation—it's whether some group will try to stall or block legislation that already has broad bipartisan support. Millions of Americans own crypto and are watching. It’s time to call the vote.
- Sep 19, 20267.3x their median
Here we go again! The WSJ is working on a story blaming Coinbase and me personally for the CLARITY Act not passing. The Journal has repeatedly been hostile to CLARITY in its reporting, regurgitating bank lobby talking points, while I’ve spent years pushing for crypto legislation, but that’s not stopping them from trying to reverse the blame. The boring TLDR: in January I opposed a draft of the bill going into a committee vote, because it needed a lot of work on DeFi, tokenization, CFTC authority, and stablecoin rewards. At the time, the bill had major issues that would have harmed crypto. Support was fractured, and it wasn’t passable. We worked with a number of parties who improved the bill and made it passable. All four of the items I called out were fixed in the draft that then went through the committee about four months later. I'm proud to have done it, and would do it again, because it helped create a better bill. One step of many along the way. The final draft of CLARITY that went to the Senate was great, and I strongly supported it. I'll continue showing up for our customers and pushing for clear rules that treat crypto fairly, even if those who feel threatened by crypto try to plant false stories. It's a shame that the WSJ takes direction from bank lobbyists instead of reporting the truth, but luckily, people are smart enough to see through it these days, and it backfires on them every time.
- Aug 25, 20267.3x their median
Most people fail not because they make the wrong move, but because they never make the first one. Go try the idea. Fall flat on your face if you have to. The cost of inaction is almost always higher than the cost of a failed attempt.
- Aug 20, 20267.0x their median
Today’s message from @POTUS was clear: This Administration is committed to passing the Clarity Act — answering voters’ call for consistent rules for crypto. Regulators @SECPaulatkins and @chairmanselig are aligned, Congress has set a date, and the entire industry is ready to get this across the finish line. 67M Americans own crypto, and they want this legislation. I’m confident the Senate will listen. Contact your lawmakers today — let’s get this done!
- Aug 21, 20266.7x their median
That's it. That's the sign https://t.co/OasEUznu4e
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 1.2K interactions against 4.0M followers, an engagement rate of 0.029%. Measured over 42 original posts, its engagement rate beats 50% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 136K times each, and 0.866% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 3.39% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 4.3 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on almost every day in the window. Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 42 posts sampled, 60% carry an image or video, 19% are part of a thread and 21% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 26K interactions, about 22x its own typical post.
- What is Brian Armstrong's engagement rate on X?
- Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) has an engagement rate of 0.029%, based on the median interactions across 42 original posts from the last 30 days against 4,007,942 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.029%, Brian Armstrong sits above the 25th percentile of the 204,491 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @brian_armstrong have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 50% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the middle of its size range group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @brian_armstrong post?
- Most posts go out around 14:00 UTC, and Thursday is its busiest day, at roughly 4.3 posts per day across the measured window.