Where the money actually comes from
Faders stays free because some of the links you click are tagged. When someone follows one, opens an account at the casino on the other end and funds it, the operator credits the referral back to us. That credit is paid out of their marketing budget in one of two shapes: a monthly share of what the player loses to the house (revenue share), or a single one-off payment when the player crosses a deposit threshold (CPA). Nothing is lifted from your deposit, trimmed off your withdrawal, or clipped from any bonus you claim.
Every hour of testing on the site is funded from that pot. The deposits we run through the cashier ourselves, the stopwatched withdrawals that feed each operator's rolling payout score, the support tickets we file under real names, the writers who turn all of that into readable English. No subscription, no paywall, no sponsored newsletter, no banner ad sold to an operator.
The three commission shapes, side by side
Almost every deal on the site falls into one of three buckets. The table below sets out what each one is, the moment it gets triggered, and the only column that really matters: whether it moves a casino up or down the list.
| Commission type | When it is triggered | Affects ranking? |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue share | The reader signs up and starts playing. Each month, Faders receives a percentage of that player's net losses to the casino, for as long as the account stays active. | No. |
| CPA (cost per acquisition) | The reader makes a qualifying first deposit. Faders gets one flat payment, and nothing more, no matter how long the account survives after that. | No. |
| Hybrid | A smaller CPA paid up front, followed by a reduced revenue share. The compromise deal we occasionally sign with newer operators who want a lighter upfront commitment on both sides. | No. |
The wall between commissions and rankings
Commercial rates are negotiated once per operator and then dropped into a spreadsheet the ranking team has no reason to open. What that team does open every week are the payout logs, the open complaint threads, the diffs between this month's terms and last month's, the support chat transcripts and the mailbox tagged "editorial concerns". Those files decide who climbs, who drops and who comes off the page entirely.
What actually shifts a position
- Complaints. Seized balances, terms rewritten after a bonus has been triggered, verification loops that keep asking for the same document. One credible pattern is enough to push an operator down; a second one inside a few weeks is enough to pull the listing.
- Reader feedback. Emails to the desk, verifiable forum threads, and side-by-side notes from our own test accounts. Slow on its own, decisive when it lines up with what the test panel is already catching.
What does not shift a position
- A better commission rate dangled by an operator who sits below their test score.
- An affiliate manager asking, politely or otherwise, for a featured slot, a trust badge, a homepage tile or a kinder closing paragraph.
- Extra marketing budget, banner buys, exclusive banner assets or "co-promotion" packages offered in exchange for a position.
Those requests get a written no, and we keep the thread on file. When a rate rise is dangled with a ranking change attached, the answer is the same no, and the account relationship usually winds down shortly afterwards.
Operators we rank for nothing
The tables on this site are not a list of partners. Every ranking mixes three kinds of operator, and the scoring model treats all three the same way:
- Commercial partners. A signed contract, one of the three commission shapes above, and a tracked outbound link. This is the majority of what you see.
- Operators with in-house programmes we have not signed with. Some brands run their own affiliate setup rather than live on a network. When the testing earns them a slot, the slot is theirs anyway; the link just drops the reader onto the plain homepage without a tracking tag.
- Networks we refuse to work with. A small number of affiliate networks attach clauses we will not sign (forced edits toward a positive tone, carryover of negative balances between brands, clauses that let the network cancel a payout if a reader complains). Operators we can only reach through those networks pay us zero, and they still appear wherever the testing puts them.
Lines we hold, lines we refuse
- We will accept a disclosed commission for readers who open an account through one of our tracked links.
- We will push for the strongest public or Faders-exclusive bonus on offer, and pass that bonus on without taking a cut of the value.
- We will not sell a ranking position, a badge, a score, a homepage tile, or an editorial conclusion.
- We will not publish sponsored articles, native ads, or operator-written pieces dressed up to look like a review.
- We will not quietly bury a slow payout, a confiscation or a failed retest because the operator in question happens to be a partner.
- We will not chase clicks through content aimed at anyone under 18, anyone in recovery, or anyone who has told us they are looking for help. The lines on that are set out on our Responsible Gambling page.
Questions readers keep sending in
Do I pay more if I sign up through a Faders link?
No. The commission comes out of the operator's own marketing budget, not out of your wallet. Your deposit amount, your bonus, your wagering requirement and your withdrawal are all identical to going direct. In several markets the version of the welcome offer sitting behind our link is actually the stronger one, because it is the one we negotiated on readers' behalf.
If commissions do not move the rankings, what does?
Payout tests first, complaint patterns second, terms changes third, reader reports fourth, in that order of weight. The full method is written up on the About page, and every timed withdrawal we run goes into the rolling 90-day payout score that sits at the heart of each casino's position.
Are there casinos on the site that pay Faders nothing?
Yes. The operators running in-house programmes we have not signed with, and the ones only reachable through networks we refuse. Both groups are tested on the same methodology as everyone else, and their outbound links are plain, untracked homepage URLs.
Has an operator ever offered to pay for a higher ranking?
Yes, and the offer gets a written refusal every time. The email stays on file, the offer never sees daylight on the site, and the relationship with that operator usually cools soon after. There is no number you can put on a slot here.
How do I flag something that looks off?
Write to the desk through the Contact page with "Editorial concern" in the subject line. A real editor reads every one of those. If the point holds up, the ranking, the review or the note gets corrected in public, not quietly in the background.