Quote:P.S.

Before publishing this report, we made one more attempt to resolve the conflict directly with representatives of the product. In response, we received threats, an offer to pay 25 percent as a gesture of goodwill, and a request to prove traffic legitimacy by showing full funnels during a video call with our partners, even though the applications in question had already been banned. This situation concerns traffic that had been approved two months earlier.

We were ready to review the situation based on evidence, but no proof of fraud was ever presented. The same webmasters involved in this case have been working with us for a long time and have never been associated with motivated or manipulated traffic. It is also important to note that Stars did not separate the four traffic streams but combined them into one category called “partner fraud.”

The amount in dispute is not critical, but the issue is a matter of principle. We are publishing this report not to recover funds but to highlight unprofessional behavior from the advertiser. When a company declares fraud based on ChatGPT screenshots, demands partners to prove the opposite, and then stops communication, this is not a disagreement. It is a refusal of professional dialogue and responsibility.

I sent the report above in the screenshot. What exactly do you disagree with?


[b]Sveta | q3.network:

And what am I supposed to understand from this report? I need to see which conversions or which partner’s traffic you consider fraudulent, for what reasons, and a detailed fraud report is required.

The fact that there are players with minimal deposits — and that’s exactly what I see in the report — doesn’t at all mean that the traffic is fraud or motivated.


Alex:

There are players who made a deposit but never requested a bonus, never played, or never made a withdrawal.

We don’t want to pay for 70% of the players, because by one or several indicators they are classified as motivated.

So these are not real players.
The criteria by which they were identified are listed above.


Sveta | q3.network:
Players who made a deposit but never played or withdrew always appear in the streams, and this has never meant fraud or motivation.


Since when is that considered fraud?

We repeatedly requested a full analytical report or any detailed justification for the accusation. In response, we received direct refusals, stating that “everything has already been provided.” At the same time, the advertiser proposed that we “prove the opposite” by arranging a live video call with our webmasters to show their funnels, despite the fact that the apps involved had already been banned and the campaigns had ended weeks earlier.



Anton | q3.network:


This response also does not reflect the fact of any fraud on the traffic streams and provides no additional supporting information.


Alex:


(attached ChatGPT screenshot)

Quote:[i]ChatGPT:

Fraud traffic includes all cases where registration, deposits, or player activity are not genuine and do not bring value to the brand.

Usually, this includes:
[b]Motivated traffic — when users are driven by rewards (cashback, bonuses, gifts) and not by real interest in playing.[/b][/i]
Fake accounts — registrations with false data, multiple accounts, or the use of bots.[/i][/b][/i]
Proxy / VPN usage — substitution of real GEO to bypass restrictions.[/i][/b][/i]
Self-deposits — when the webmaster or their team make minimal deposits themselves to trigger payout.[/i][/b][/i]
Stolen cards or payment fraud — deposits made using stolen cards, hacked wallets, or other illegal sources.[/i][/b][/i]
Low-quality traffic — when users register and deposit but show no further activity (so-called “dead” players).[/i][/b][/i]
Unauthorized sources — traffic from spam mailings, incent schemes, or other non-agreed placements.[/i][/b][/i]