Hello,
I want to report a case of commission withholding by the operator Chinchin Partners (HoneyBetz / LiraSpin / iSpinSahara), following a retroactive change of terms that were never part of our original agreement.
In November–December 2025, I entered into a cooperation with the operator through their affiliate manager Ivan. We agreed on a hybrid deal of €150 CPA + 35% RevShare, with specific brand placements on my websites. At no point during our discussions were KPIs, OAS thresholds, minimum quality requirements, test periods, or conditional payment clauses mentioned or agreed upon. I can attach the full conversation with Ivan that clearly confirms these terms.
Following this agreement, my affiliate account was created, tracking links were provided, commissions were marked as “already set up”, and the brands went live on the agreed placements without any objections, warnings, or special conditions. At no stage was the cooperation described as a test, nor was any traffic subject to prior quality approval.
Traffic was delivered mainly through SEO, along with organic social media traffic. Within 2,5 months, 12 registrations and 6 FTDs were generated, deposits were made, and the affiliate dashboard showed an earned commission of €760.36. A payment request was submitted correctly via the dashboard and its status was marked as “Review”.
When I tried to contact my manager Ivan, I was informed that he was removed from his position and a new affiliate manager informed me that the payment would be adjusted due to an internal KPI requirement of 60% OAS over 14 days. This KPI was never communicated before, never agreed upon, and is now being applied retroactively to traffic that was already delivered under the original deal. I explicitly stated that I do not work under KPI-based agreements and would not have accepted the cooperation if such conditions had existed.
It is also important to note that during this discussion, the affiliate manager initially proposed paying me part of the commission, adjusted according to the alleged KPI. Only after I refused this partial payment and insisted on the originally agreed terms did the issue of a “fraud department review” suddenly arise.
Subsequently, my traffic was described as “low quality” and sent for fraud review, without any concrete evidence being provided. I was also informed that if the fraud department confirms suspicions, the payout may be cancelled and the account fully blocked. These claims were made only after the payment request was submitted and disputed.
I made it clear that any new terms or KPIs can only apply to future traffic and cannot be used to modify or invalidate commissions already earned under an existing agreement. Despite this, the operator continues to withhold payment and insists on enforcing conditions that were introduced after the fact.
I can attach the full chat history with both affiliate managers, along with dashboard screenshots, which demonstrate that no KPIs were part of the original agreement and that the cooperation was live and active under the agreed terms.
I am requesting your assistance in reviewing this case, as it appears to be a clear example of retroactive term enforcement and unjustified refusal to pay earned affiliate commissions.
I want to report a case of commission withholding by the operator Chinchin Partners (HoneyBetz / LiraSpin / iSpinSahara), following a retroactive change of terms that were never part of our original agreement.
In November–December 2025, I entered into a cooperation with the operator through their affiliate manager Ivan. We agreed on a hybrid deal of €150 CPA + 35% RevShare, with specific brand placements on my websites. At no point during our discussions were KPIs, OAS thresholds, minimum quality requirements, test periods, or conditional payment clauses mentioned or agreed upon. I can attach the full conversation with Ivan that clearly confirms these terms.
Following this agreement, my affiliate account was created, tracking links were provided, commissions were marked as “already set up”, and the brands went live on the agreed placements without any objections, warnings, or special conditions. At no stage was the cooperation described as a test, nor was any traffic subject to prior quality approval.
Traffic was delivered mainly through SEO, along with organic social media traffic. Within 2,5 months, 12 registrations and 6 FTDs were generated, deposits were made, and the affiliate dashboard showed an earned commission of €760.36. A payment request was submitted correctly via the dashboard and its status was marked as “Review”.
When I tried to contact my manager Ivan, I was informed that he was removed from his position and a new affiliate manager informed me that the payment would be adjusted due to an internal KPI requirement of 60% OAS over 14 days. This KPI was never communicated before, never agreed upon, and is now being applied retroactively to traffic that was already delivered under the original deal. I explicitly stated that I do not work under KPI-based agreements and would not have accepted the cooperation if such conditions had existed.
It is also important to note that during this discussion, the affiliate manager initially proposed paying me part of the commission, adjusted according to the alleged KPI. Only after I refused this partial payment and insisted on the originally agreed terms did the issue of a “fraud department review” suddenly arise.
Subsequently, my traffic was described as “low quality” and sent for fraud review, without any concrete evidence being provided. I was also informed that if the fraud department confirms suspicions, the payout may be cancelled and the account fully blocked. These claims were made only after the payment request was submitted and disputed.
I made it clear that any new terms or KPIs can only apply to future traffic and cannot be used to modify or invalidate commissions already earned under an existing agreement. Despite this, the operator continues to withhold payment and insists on enforcing conditions that were introduced after the fact.
I can attach the full chat history with both affiliate managers, along with dashboard screenshots, which demonstrate that no KPIs were part of the original agreement and that the cooperation was live and active under the agreed terms.
I am requesting your assistance in reviewing this case, as it appears to be a clear example of retroactive term enforcement and unjustified refusal to pay earned affiliate commissions.