BitStarz Affiliates: Terms you should know

[Roulette Zeitung]

Termination without Cause

We may terminate this agreement, without cause at any time

First Payout Quota

Affiliate needs at least 3 depositing players (active) before their first commission is paid.

Minimum Payout

Payment shall be processed on the 5th of the following month in which the traffic was generated. [...] Minimum withdrawals for affiliates is 0.02 BTC or €100.

 

[bonustreak]

Thanks! I will add to my list of programs to re-read

 

[AussieDave]

First Payout Quota

Affiliate needs at least 3 depositing players (active) before their first commission is paid.

Hypothetical... Lets say a"new" affiliate, signs in April 2021, and for this month, she/he sends the program 2 NDP's. From those 2 new players, the affiliate earns 500 Euro.

However, because there is not 3 (active) players sent, the affiliate is not paid.

Next month, May 2021. The affiliate refers a further 2 NDP's. However, like April, only 2 players are again active. For May 2021, the affiliate makes 750 Euro commission.

So in total, this affiliate has earned 1200 Euro. Has referred 4 NDP's. But, because this affiliate has not, in any of these months, has 3 or more ACTIVE players, then the program STILL does not pay the affiliate.

Is that the basis of this quota term and its meaning?

If so, then that totally sucks.

Edit:
Let me say, as I have always said. If an affiliate receives Revenue Share, then, the number of referred, should not have any influence on whether the affiliate is paid or not. If the program/casino has made profit, and the affiliate has made commission, from that profit, then the program pays the affiliate. End of Story!

 

[Strider1973]

I think this quota is no problem.
I think they just want to avoid that players refer themselves in order to get a nice cashback in form of affiliate commissions.

I am an affiliate at Bitstarz and I once asked about cashing out my earnings. They then informed me about that quota. It then took me a couple of months to reach those 3 depositing players and since then cashouts work fine. I don't think you need 3 active players in a month, you just have to have referred 3 depositors before the first cashout.

So I have to disagree with RZ as for me this is completely fine.

 

[Insider]

So in total, this affiliate has earned 1200 Euro. Has referred 4 NDP's. But, because this affiliate has not, in any of these months, has 3 or more ACTIVE players, then the program STILL does not pay the affiliate.

Is that the basis of this quota term and its meaning?

If so, then that totally sucks.

Edit:
Let me say, as I have always said. If an affiliate receives Revenue Share, then, the number of referred, should not have any influence on whether the affiliate is paid or not. If the program/casino has made profit, and the affiliate has made commission, from that profit, then the program pays the affiliate. End of Story!

I don't think so or better said i hope that's not the case because it's not stated that you need 3 NDP's (active) per month to be paid.

Anyway i agree that totally sucks whether it's 1 or 3. It should not dependent by.

At least they have written: Minimum withdrawals for affiliates is 0.02 BTC or €100. (remember Paradise)

 

[Roulette Zeitung]

So I have to disagree with RZ as for me this is completely fine.

Fine, that it's fine for you, but disagree with what exactly?

Have I wrote a single word about any opinion from my side about that term?
If so, please quote it.

The only thing, I wrote is:

First Payout Quota

Affiliate needs at least 3 depositing players (active) before their first commission is paid.

So where is here anything to disagree???
Where is here any opinion I wrote one can disagree with???
I have only stated, that it's a first payout quota, and the existance is a sober fact, also quoted the term without any comments.
So what?
Disagree with the fact, that this term exist or what?!

And yes, as I stated, it's a FIRST PAYOUT quota, nothing more but also nothing less.

One can have different opinions on first payout quotas but to disagree with a sober fact post without any comments by the poster is really great.

If one can do this sober and time consuming term fact job without having any benefit better, please replace me.

 

[Strider1973]

Fine, that it's fine for you, but disagree with what exactly?

You are right, you didn't write an opinion, sorry for not being precise enough in a foreign language.
So I disagree with the Bitstarz bashing by quoting terms that for me personally seem ok.

 

[Roulette Zeitung]

"Bitstarz bashing by quoting terms"

So, quoting terms is already bashing?
If I quote terms about minimum payouts, it's also bashing for you?
If I quote a $2 minimum payout, that's bashing?
The date, terms have been last updated, wait, bashing, right?

People, I love most, are those, who just take, never give.
And those, who are really subliminally claim, terms should not be published, because they could possibly hurt someones feeling or damage the phenomenal high IQ.

 

[AussieDave]

I disagree with the Bitstarz bashing by quoting terms that for me personally seem ok.

I'm a High Roller at Bitstarz, they're one of, if not (IMHO) the best casino online, today.

• No max withdrawal limits (non VIP's have a 100 withdrawal limit of free gift spins);
• Withdrawals are paid on average within 15min 24/7;
• VIP manager Olle, is honest, as the day is long. One of the best I've dealt with in 23 years, online.
• Support staff are not only friendly, but knowledable too. No circle jerking here.
• Slot RTP's (unlike other casinos), Bitstarz (AFAIK) does not lower them.

Hence, I can understand why you feeling how you are.

If the quota is there to STOP affiliates signing up under their own afftag, then simple. Ban that option.

My point is, it should not matter if an affiliate refers one (1) NDP or if they refer 100 NDP's. If the casino earns profit on that one (1) player, then the casino must pay that affiliate their commission. Not hobble rightful payment/earnings with a min player quota.

Your OK with quota/rule. Cool

However some affiliates may not be, hence RZ is only letting them know about that rule

 

[Bitstarz Affiliates]

Hi Everyone,

We would like to clear up, what seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding on the above.

Below we will highlight three topics on what has been mentioned above:

Termination without Cause
“We may terminate this agreement, without cause at any time.”
We haven’t terminated any affiliates for the past 7 years without a legit cause. If we have done a termination of an affiliates account, this is due to T&C’s not being adhered to or it has been 100% self-affiliation.

First Payout Quota
“Affiliate needs at least 3 depositing players (active) before their first commission is paid.”
We only require 3 depositing players for the first time a commission is paid. If you have met this requirement and thereafter, only get one plater the following month, your commission will still be paid. It is only for the first time, no need to get at least three players every month.

Minimum Payout
“Payment shall be processed by the 5th of the following month in which the traffic was generated. Minimum withdrawals for affiliates is 0.02 BTC or €100.”
We have this rule because we do incur payment fees and we cover that for our affiliates.
It doesn’t make sense for example, to pay 25eur to the bank and then to pay 25eur for bank fees. Also BTC minimum is about to be adjusted (we have an open task currently for our devs to amend) but every month we adjust it to the equivalent of 100eur for payouts.

We hope this clears up any uncertainty.
Affiliates are also welcome to get into direct contact with their affiliate manager if they have any further questions.

 

[Roulette Zeitung]

"We haven’t terminated any affiliates for the past 7 years without a legit cause."

If you will not terminate any affiliate in the future "without cause" but still only with a "legit cause", what you are claiming, why then in the terms, which are the only legit valid thing in a business relationsship and no lip services, why there is not standing "“We may terminate this agreement, with a legit cause” instead of "without cause at any time”?

Can you explain this, so that also a serious lawyer for affiliates would say, that's a good argument?

Otherwise just change it. The only option after this public statement.

 

[AussieDave]

"We haven’t terminated any affiliates for the past 7 years without a legit cause."

If you will not terminate any affiliate in the future "without cause" but still only with a "legit cause", what you are claiming, why then in the terms, which are the only legit valid thing in a business relationsship and no lip services, why there is not standing "“We may terminate this agreement, with a legit cause” instead of "without cause at any time”?

RZ expresses a valid point. If the "term" as it is written, is not used, then it should be edited to reflect, exactly what, this, contractual "term" actually means.

 

[Bitstarz Affiliates]

Hi All,

Thank you for your feedback.

We will be attending to this and implementing an update with regards to this sentence.
"We may terminate this agreement if it is determined that an affiliate has broken the related terms and conditions. This termination will be communicated via the email address provided to us during the registration process.”

It is with our dev’s at present to update.

Thanks again for all your feedback regards to this.

Thanks

 

[Roulette Zeitung]

That would be de jure and de facto perfectly correct then.