Dmytro_Huffson
New Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2026
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1
Background
Huffson Group began working with Chipstars Affiliates in January 2026, starting with one ASO partner. In February, two additional independent partners were onboarded — Facebook and SEO. All three teams operated separately and had no connection to each other. Terms were agreed upfront with their manager Lazar.
Agreed terms (documented in chat): "We would just like to keep soft KPIs: Fraud Traffic, Motivated (Incentive) Traffic, Chargebacks, inactive (min dep and 0 activity), Multi, Scheme Traffic, Disable, Self-excluded and Duplicates. Is that fine?"
That was the complete list. No volume caps . No KPI thresholds. No behavioral benchmarks. Nothing else was communicated before, during, or after the launch.
Results: ASO — 3 FTD, FB — 1 FTD, SEO — 11 FTD. Total owed: $3,310 + €660.
What happened next
One manager left the chat without explanation. The second stopped responding. We stopped all campaigns immediately — which is why volumes were small. After persistent follow-up, a call was arranged with the owner, who claimed all traffic was "motivated." We requested a per-source breakdown. Instead, three independent traffic streams from three unrelated teams were dismissed with a single verdict.
In March, Chipstars provided an Excel report with new post-facto reasons: "too small amount," "low bet count doesn't meet our expectations," "the player didn't ask to withdraw," "traffic does not meet our usual validation criteria." None of these criteria were part of the original agreement.
In April, we compared the Excel figures against their own platform. The platform showed significantly higher deposit amounts. Screenshots confirm this. Chipstars then offered a "goodwill payment" — approximately 3x lower than what their own platform displayed.
Chipstars' responses — and why they don't hold up
"Temporary backoffice display issue". Their backoffice and Excel report all show different figures for the same traffic. You cannot simultaneously claim a display issue and accurate real-time postback transmission. These statements directly contradict each other. By their own admission, at least one data source is unreliable — yet the one chosen as the basis for payment decisions is a manually edited spreadsheet.
"Internal validation standards". We understand fraud markers are not publicly disclosed — that is industry standard. But one question remains: how is it possible to label an entire traffic stream as fraudulent when one flow produced just 1 FTD? That is not analysis. That is a verdict without evidence. Three independent sources — ASO, Facebook, SEO — with different audiences, mechanics, and behavior patterns were dismissed under one blanket conclusion. Each must be evaluated separately. A methodology that doesn't is one that can reject any traffic from any partner at any time.
"Not shaving". Excel figures consistently lower than platform data, combined with partial FTD counts passed to our tracker, are not a coincidence. That is the definition of shaving. We have no way to independently verify which figure is accurate — and that is precisely the problem.
"The goodwill offer was fair" ~530 EUR against an agreed CPA value of $3,900 is not fair. No volume cap was set — the test must be paid in full. Offering a fraction of the agreed value after dismissing three sources with a single verdict is not a resolution. It is a model for receiving traffic at near-zero cost. Several responses also appeared to be copy-paste templates — sent without even verifying the partner's name. That is not case review. That is a conveyor belt for dispute dismissal.
They admitted unprofessional conduct. Chipstars acknowledged in writing: "communication could have been handled better on our side, particularly regarding response delays and management changes". That behavior caused us to stop campaigns early. The low volumes now used against us are a consequence of their own conduct.
One more thing
We have documentation showing the same platform issues existed in 2024. At that time, payment was processed when we raised the matter. Nothing was fixed since — yet the same bug is now the primary justification for non-payment. That is not a technical explanation. That is a pattern.
Our position
Huffson Group operated within every agreed condition. The traffic was real. The terms were met. We demand full payment of $3,310 + €660.
We do not recommend working with Chipstars. A program that applies undisclosed internal standards, operates with known unresolved platform issues, and pays selectively depending on whether a dispute goes public is not a reliable partner. If a brand is willing to damage its reputation over $4,000 — can it really be trusted with large volumes? We encourage all affiliates to conduct thorough due diligence before entering any agreement with them.
Screenshots of chat terms, platform data, Excel discrepancies, and Chipstars' public responses are available.
Huffson Group began working with Chipstars Affiliates in January 2026, starting with one ASO partner. In February, two additional independent partners were onboarded — Facebook and SEO. All three teams operated separately and had no connection to each other. Terms were agreed upfront with their manager Lazar.
Agreed terms (documented in chat): "We would just like to keep soft KPIs: Fraud Traffic, Motivated (Incentive) Traffic, Chargebacks, inactive (min dep and 0 activity), Multi, Scheme Traffic, Disable, Self-excluded and Duplicates. Is that fine?"
That was the complete list. No volume caps . No KPI thresholds. No behavioral benchmarks. Nothing else was communicated before, during, or after the launch.
Results: ASO — 3 FTD, FB — 1 FTD, SEO — 11 FTD. Total owed: $3,310 + €660.
What happened next
One manager left the chat without explanation. The second stopped responding. We stopped all campaigns immediately — which is why volumes were small. After persistent follow-up, a call was arranged with the owner, who claimed all traffic was "motivated." We requested a per-source breakdown. Instead, three independent traffic streams from three unrelated teams were dismissed with a single verdict.
In March, Chipstars provided an Excel report with new post-facto reasons: "too small amount," "low bet count doesn't meet our expectations," "the player didn't ask to withdraw," "traffic does not meet our usual validation criteria." None of these criteria were part of the original agreement.
In April, we compared the Excel figures against their own platform. The platform showed significantly higher deposit amounts. Screenshots confirm this. Chipstars then offered a "goodwill payment" — approximately 3x lower than what their own platform displayed.
Chipstars' responses — and why they don't hold up
"Temporary backoffice display issue". Their backoffice and Excel report all show different figures for the same traffic. You cannot simultaneously claim a display issue and accurate real-time postback transmission. These statements directly contradict each other. By their own admission, at least one data source is unreliable — yet the one chosen as the basis for payment decisions is a manually edited spreadsheet.
"Internal validation standards". We understand fraud markers are not publicly disclosed — that is industry standard. But one question remains: how is it possible to label an entire traffic stream as fraudulent when one flow produced just 1 FTD? That is not analysis. That is a verdict without evidence. Three independent sources — ASO, Facebook, SEO — with different audiences, mechanics, and behavior patterns were dismissed under one blanket conclusion. Each must be evaluated separately. A methodology that doesn't is one that can reject any traffic from any partner at any time.
"Not shaving". Excel figures consistently lower than platform data, combined with partial FTD counts passed to our tracker, are not a coincidence. That is the definition of shaving. We have no way to independently verify which figure is accurate — and that is precisely the problem.
"The goodwill offer was fair" ~530 EUR against an agreed CPA value of $3,900 is not fair. No volume cap was set — the test must be paid in full. Offering a fraction of the agreed value after dismissing three sources with a single verdict is not a resolution. It is a model for receiving traffic at near-zero cost. Several responses also appeared to be copy-paste templates — sent without even verifying the partner's name. That is not case review. That is a conveyor belt for dispute dismissal.
They admitted unprofessional conduct. Chipstars acknowledged in writing: "communication could have been handled better on our side, particularly regarding response delays and management changes". That behavior caused us to stop campaigns early. The low volumes now used against us are a consequence of their own conduct.
One more thing
We have documentation showing the same platform issues existed in 2024. At that time, payment was processed when we raised the matter. Nothing was fixed since — yet the same bug is now the primary justification for non-payment. That is not a technical explanation. That is a pattern.
Our position
Huffson Group operated within every agreed condition. The traffic was real. The terms were met. We demand full payment of $3,310 + €660.
We do not recommend working with Chipstars. A program that applies undisclosed internal standards, operates with known unresolved platform issues, and pays selectively depending on whether a dispute goes public is not a reliable partner. If a brand is willing to damage its reputation over $4,000 — can it really be trusted with large volumes? We encourage all affiliates to conduct thorough due diligence before entering any agreement with them.
Screenshots of chat terms, platform data, Excel discrepancies, and Chipstars' public responses are available.