What changed: follower minimum and $100 threshold

Two things changed on this platform. One of them makes us look better and one of them does not, so here are both, with the reasoning.

Followers to open an account

1,000+Followers to open an account

Wallet payout threshold

$100Wallet payout threshold

Bank wire threshold, unchanged

$1,000Bank wire threshold, unchanged

We now publish a follower requirement

Until now this site said there was no follower minimum. That was true of the advertisers and misleading about us.

Here is the distinction, because it is the whole point. The affiliate programs in our directory impose no follower requirement of their own, and they never did. Approval on those runs through our upstream publisher relationship rather than through each brand's application form, which is what a sub-affiliate network is for and why a creator with no website can promote them at all.

Our own account is a different question, and in practice it always had a floor. Applications from accounts with almost no audience were being declined on the same grounds every time. Saying "no follower minimum" while declining those applications is a technically accurate sentence doing the work of a false one.

So the requirement is now written down: 1,000 followers on at least one channel.

Some people are worse off under this and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. An account below a thousand followers that would previously have applied and been declined can now see that before spending the time. That is the improvement being claimed: not more approvals, less wasted effort and no ambiguity about where the bar is.

The wallet payout threshold moved to $100

This is the change that costs partners something, so it gets the longer explanation.

Method	Was	Now
PayPal, Wise, Payoneer, Skrill	$50	$100
USDT (TRC-20), Bitcoin	$50	$100
ACH and bank wire	$1,000	$1,000

The honest reason is transfer economics. Every payout carries a cost that does not scale with its size, and at $50 that cost was a large enough share of the payment to be worth fixing rather than absorbing indefinitely. Doubling the floor halves the number of transfers without changing what anyone earns.

The honest cost is that a partner earning slowly now waits longer for the first payment. If you were clearing $50 every two months you now clear $100 every four. Nothing is lost, but "nothing is lost" is easy to say when it is not your money waiting.

Two things that reduce the sting, both of which were already true:

The balance is cumulative and does not reset. A balance under the threshold rolls into the next run and keeps accumulating. There is no expiry and no dormancy deduction.

The threshold applies in your held currency. Balances sit in US dollars, pounds sterling or euros, so a UK partner clears the sterling equivalent without a conversion at withdrawal.

Where these numbers live

Both figures now resolve from one place in the codebase and render everywhere from there, which means a page cannot disagree with another page about what the threshold is. That sounds like housekeeping and it is the reason third-party directories currently list a figure for us that is out of date: numbers that are typed by hand in six places drift.

The authoritative pages are payouts for the thresholds and schedules, and the FAQ for eligibility. Both carry a last-reviewed date. Where anything else on the internet disagrees with those two, including a directory listing that looks official, those two are correct.

What has not changed

Free to join. No monthly fee, no minimum spend, no exclusivity. Up to 90% revenue share. No website required. Applications reviewed by a person, usually within two business days.

And the thing that matters most: commission rate, cookie window, average order value and promotional restrictions stay published on every program page, before you sign up rather than after. That is the part we would not change under any commercial argument, because it is the only reason anyone should trust the rest of it.