Hi Jax, so would you be at liberty to tell us whether or not the entire 5-7% of these progressive contributions actually goes into the progressive jackpot pool or if there are kickbacks to the software itself. I am trying to take the affiliate out of the equation for a minute and think about what happens when a player is not tagged to an affiliate. I have a hard time believing that the casinos themselves would agree to a policy where they could end up loser on a particular progressive player even though the player lost their entire bankroll. Yet this is what has been happening with affiliates this whole time. I might be wrong but I am guessing this isn't the way it works. My guess is there is a margin of profit built into this 5-7% number and this is what the casinos fall back on to fund the progressive pool in such a situation. Regardless affiliates need to be out of the equation with progressive contributions completely. I don't see how you can use money to fund a progressive pool that isn't there. Meaning if a player deposits $100 and plays for weeks off this deposit on a progressive, then eventually that $100 is going to go into the progressive pool which means there is no more money to fund the pool. Yet Rival is pulling this money out of thin air and just decides to use genuinely earned affiliates commissions to do it? This is very infair. If they want the progressive pool to grow from fantasy money, let them use their own revenues to do it instead of ours. Or they need to do it by coins in like someone else mentioned so affiliates can't go backwards on a player which negates genuinely earned commissions by us. The bottom line is something seriously wrong with a system where a player can lose their entire bankroll, yet the affiliate ends up loser on that player even though they didn't beat the house out of a single red cent.