Two pages, two totals
The affiliate public page lists an ‘advertised_total_per_friend_inr’ of ₹110 split across two milestones. The first milestone credits a ₹30 bonus for sign-up, the second credits ₹80 cash once the friend deposits and either reaches an effective ₹1,000 turnover or plays their first mega contest.
Where the ₹400 comes from
A separate rewards-page snapshot advertises ₹400 cash for every successful referrer. The two pages are in the same snapshot and point at the same product, but the totals differ.
How this product profile treats the conflict
We display both totals and label the conflict as unresolved. We do not pick one number as the ‘truth’ and hide the other. Shortlisting visitors need to see the conflict to avoid being misled by either page.
Safe checks
Open the publisher’s rewards page from the install destination, not from this domain. Confirm which milestone description matches your expected action. If either total is smaller than the offer you expect to deliver, use /contact/ to report the discrepancy before inviting friends.
What this article is not
This is not a marketing brief. We have not invented offers, sign-up bonuses, payout cycles or comparisons with other publishers. The aim of the article is to read the staged snapshot exactly as it was published, name what is and is not in it, and let a shortlisting visitor decide what to do next. Where the source is silent, the article is silent.
What we recommend doing next
Open the publisher’s onboarding screen from the install destination at /Login/playnow. Confirm the welcome tier, the VIP thresholds and the refer-and-earn total on the publisher’s own screen. If a number disagrees with what this article shows, the publisher’s screen is the source of record on the day you act. Report the gap through /contact/ so the editorial team can publish a correction in a follow-up piece.
Where the two totals came from
Two pages in the same staged snapshot carry two different numbers for refer-and-earn: an affiliate public page lists a total of ₹110 split across two milestones, and a separate rewards-page snapshot advertises a total of ₹400 cash per successful referrer. Both pages are in the same payload, so both are part of the source.
Why we publish both
We publish both totals because the source itself is inconsistent. An audit-minded reader who sees only the ₹110 figure would not know that the publisher also publishes ₹400. An audit-minded reader who sees only the ₹400 figure would not know that the publisher also publishes ₹110. We display both and label the conflict as unresolved.
Why we do not pick a winner
Picking one number as the ‘truth’ would be editorial bias. The snapshot is internally inconsistent; readers need to see that. The honest statement is ‘unresolved’ rather than one of the two figures.
How to handle a referenced friend
If you plan to refer a friend, do not rely on either figure alone. Open the publisher’s own rewards page from /Login/playnow and confirm which total applies on the day you refer. Use /contact/ to report any disagreement so the editorial team can publish a follow-up correction.
Why we do not invent a reconciliation
Inventing a reconciliation would be reporting. The desk’s job is to verify, not to mediate. If the publisher publishes a reconciliation in a future snapshot, the desk will republish the article with the new row. Until then, the conflict stands.
What the editorial team will do next
The team will republish the article if either total changes. The team will not invent a reconciliation the source has not provided. The team will publish a follow-up if the publisher publishes one.
Why this kind of conflict is worth flagging
Most marketing materials hide such conflicts. An audit-minded reader who relies on a single figure risks sending a friend expecting one total and receiving another. Flagging the conflict is part of the snapshot-backed editorial discipline that the rest of the verification profile follows.
Where this article ends
Open the publisher’s rewards page from /Login/playnow. Confirm which total applies. Submit any disagreement through /contact/. That is the entire loop and the only honest way to keep refer-and-earn verification useful for shortlisting visitors.