Hexington @btcmaxirh - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

2 months ago

@RichardHeartWin Hi Richard! I think you are right we need to focus on marketing. How do all these lame Kick streamers like Clavicular get BILLIONS of views? Its simple: pay ppl to clip your content and trick the twitter algo with thousands of clips at the same time https://t.co/hEAMrEECVT

btcmaxirh's tweet photo. @RichardHeartWin Hi Richard!

I think you are right we need to focus on marketing.

How do all these lame Kick streamers like Clavicular get BILLIONS of views?

Its simple: pay ppl to clip your content and trick the twitter algo with thousands of clips at the same time

https://t.co/hEAMrEECVT https://t.co/XWVIdFNRQA

Devin

@DevinNash

2 months ago

If you understand this chart you understand the state of livestreaming in 2026. You can propel any influencer to high viewership regardless of content quality by tricking algorithms into featuring them. It guarantees followers and is basically pay to win. Here's how it works: Central Discord servers post opportunities for anyone to clip any content from a streamer in exchange for CPM ($s per 1000 views.) Typical CPMs are .50c to $2, with a minimum view limit for payout of 100,000 views. The clippers are mostly second or third world where the USD currency exchange rate is more favorable. Platforms are usually Tiktok, Instagram, and YT Shorts, but also sometimes X. Clavicular has said payouts are sometimes as high as $30 CPM, but I don't believe that. Because of the view limit, many of the views on these charts are free. Clavicular had 2.2 billion views on 70,000 clips, putting the average clip at 31,700 views. That would suggest most of the views are free (below the 100,000 view limit.) I am also told a single clipper can count multiple clips towards that view limit. If that is true, it would make these campaigns much more expensive than what I state below. Assuming 90% of the views are free, it would cost about $222,123 a month to run his campaign alone at $1 CPM. That number goes up to $666,371 if only 70% of the views are free. It's also exponentially higher if the CPMs are even remotely where Clavicular says they are (it would be in the millions per month.) Now here's the interesting part. None of these people are running these themselves. With respect to these streamers, some of them are quite smart but none of them have the marketing prowess to run a campaign like this. These campaigns are being run and funded by Kick themselves. To quote Clav on stream last month: "I believe it’s about a thousand clippers right now. A billion views a month. Kick has helped push me a lot with their clipping budget, over six figures a month in that campaign going towards pushing me out to new audiences." Kick is spending MILLIONs of dollars a month promoting these streamers, and then is also paying them via their partner program as well. It seems to be totally arbitrary who gets promoted and who doesn't, a "who you know" sort of thing. This is a different approach to Twitch's growth marketing strategy that they executed from 2012-2019ish, which was to pay streamers for exclusivity and the number of viewers they had with MGs and bonuses. It's a much more effective strategy because it abuses algorithms. 70,000 clips in a month of Clavicular tells an algorithm "hey a ton of people are posting about this person, make sure anything he posts blows up." You could be the most uninteresting person ever (indeed some of the people on this list are) and still get massive reach because it's not the people that are voting on your popularity with engagement. It's the algorithm pushing it no matter what because it's taught that sheer volume of posts about the same thing = that thing is important. From one perspective this is astroturfing content creators and creating false ecosystems. From another it's a new age multi-million dollar marketing campaign from a platform to drive viewers to itself. Wherever you stand on it, streaming is a much more "gamed" ecosystem now and will remain so. There's no real way to police this behavior since it hijacks how algorithms perceive growth and serve content. This makes livestreaming the most "rigged game" in content creation and you will see very few broadcasters come up in the next couple years who aren't utilizing this strategy.

DevinNash's tweet photo. If you understand this chart you understand the state of livestreaming in 2026. You can propel any influencer to high viewership regardless of content quality by tricking algorithms into featuring them. It guarantees followers and is basically pay to win.

Here's how it works:

Central Discord servers post opportunities for anyone to clip any content from a streamer in exchange for CPM ($s per 1000 views.) Typical CPMs are .50c to $2, with a minimum view limit for payout of 100,000 views.

The clippers are mostly second or third world where the USD currency exchange rate is more favorable. Platforms are usually Tiktok, Instagram, and YT Shorts, but also sometimes X. Clavicular has said payouts are sometimes as high as $30 CPM, but I don't believe that.

Because of the view limit, many of the views on these charts are free. Clavicular had 2.2 billion views on 70,000 clips, putting the average clip at 31,700 views. That would suggest most of the views are free (below the 100,000 view limit.)

I am also told a single clipper can count multiple clips towards that view limit. If that is true, it would make these campaigns much more expensive than what I state below.

Assuming 90% of the views are free, it would cost about $222,123 a month to run his campaign alone at $1 CPM. That number goes up to $666,371 if only 70% of the views are free. It's also exponentially higher if the CPMs are even remotely where Clavicular says they are (it would be in the millions per month.)

Now here's the interesting part. None of these people are running these themselves. With respect to these streamers, some of them are quite smart but none of them have the marketing prowess to run a campaign like this.

These campaigns are being run and funded by Kick themselves. To quote Clav on stream last month: "I believe it’s about a thousand clippers right now. A billion views a month. Kick has helped push me a lot with their clipping budget, over six figures a month in that campaign going towards pushing me out to new audiences."

Kick is spending MILLIONs of dollars a month promoting these streamers, and then is also paying them via their partner program as well. It seems to be totally arbitrary who gets promoted and who doesn't, a "who you know" sort of thing.

This is a different approach to Twitch's growth marketing strategy that they executed from 2012-2019ish, which was to pay streamers for exclusivity and the number of viewers they had with MGs and bonuses.

It's a much more effective strategy because it abuses algorithms. 70,000 clips in a month of Clavicular tells an algorithm "hey a ton of people are posting about this person, make sure anything he posts blows up."

You could be the most uninteresting person ever (indeed some of the people on this list are) and still get massive reach because it's not the people that are voting on your popularity with engagement. It's the algorithm pushing it no matter what because it's taught that sheer volume of posts about the same thing = that thing is important.

From one perspective this is astroturfing content creators and creating false ecosystems. From another it's a new age multi-million dollar marketing campaign from a platform to drive viewers to itself.

Wherever you stand on it, streaming is a much more "gamed" ecosystem now and will remain so. There's no real way to police this behavior since it hijacks how algorithms perceive growth and serve content.

This makes livestreaming the most "rigged game" in content creation and you will see very few broadcasters come up in the next couple years who aren't utilizing this strategy.

56

692

62

564

120K

2

5

0

2

324

Hexington

@btcmaxirh

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users