Here's a game. Pick any "best affiliate programs" list and try to find where ONE commission rate came from.
Go on, I'll wait.
Usually you can't. One site printed it, ten more copied it, and two years later nobody knows if it was ever true. I've done this more times than I'd like to admit, and it's maddening.
We didn't want to add to that pile. So this blog runs on five rules.
The 5 rules
1. We go to the source
A rate, a fee or a policy comes from the company that sets it. Not from another blog's list.
A company's own page can be out of date too. But it's the page you'd be held to, so it's the one worth reading.
2. We open it that day
If we can't load the page while writing, the claim doesn't go in. No filling gaps from memory.
That's why every article ends with the date we read its sources.
3. We'd rather leave a gap than guess
If a company's page doesn't say, we tell you it doesn't say.
It makes for a few awkward sentences. We think that's better than confident nonsense.
4. No affiliate links
A page that compares programs shouldn't be paid by the programs it compares. Every link here is a plain link.
If that ever changes, you'll see "paid link" right beside it. That's the wording the FTC's FAQ suggests.
5. No "best" without proof
We have no performance data, so we don't rank by performance. When we score things, we tell you the scores are our opinion and show you how we got them.
What that looks like in practice
Rules are easy to write. Here's where they actually cost us something.
When we compared USDC and USDT, we couldn't open Tether's reserve reports. So that row isn't in the table, and the article says why.
When we wrote about top offers pages, several blogs said some networks quote earnings per 100 clicks. We couldn't confirm it on those networks' own pages. So the article says exactly that.
And when we scored 12 ways to promote offers, we had no data to rank them by. So the article says the scores are judgment, in bold.
3 things we've got wrong so far
We'd rather tell you ourselves.
1. We read sources through a tool
An AI model helps us research and draft, and it summarizes pages for us. Until a person rechecks a quote, treat our quotation marks as "reported", not "certified".
2. Sources contradict themselves
ClickBank's help center gives one metric a 90-day window. One of its blog posts says 12 weeks. When that happens, we show you both.
3. "We didn't find it" isn't proof
It only means it wasn't on the pages we opened that day.
How to check us
Click through. Every article ends with the pages we used and the date we read them.
If a rate has changed since then, the source wins and we're out of date. Terms move. That's why the date is there.
Final thoughts
None of this is clever. It's just slower than copying a list.
But slower is the point. If you're going to spend your evenings promoting a program, you deserve to know where the numbers came from.
About this blog
Nativness publishes this blog. It's a devnet prototype with simulated escrow and no real money, users or sales. That's exactly why we show our sources: a marketplace with no track record can't ask you to take its word for anything.
Nothing here is paid for, and no link earns us money.
