We sit between two sides
and prove what happened.

Why a network needs a middle

An advertiser and a publisher can always do a deal directly. What they cannot easily do is agree, afterwards, on what happened. The advertiser has their own numbers, the publisher has theirs, and when the two disagree there is no third record — so the argument is settled by whoever has more leverage.

That is the problem this platform exists to remove. Every click mints an unguessable identifier. Every conversion has to quote it. Every movement of money is a row in an append-only ledger that can be replayed and checked against the balance it claims to produce. Nobody has to be trusted, because the record is the same record for both sides.

What we decided not to build

Most of the character of a platform is in what it refuses to do. Ours:

• No rate card. Terms are agreed per partner, the way this industry actually works. You will not find a published percentage anywhere on this site, and a number a competitor quotes you is not one we have to match.
• No advertising cookies and no third-party analytics. We count what we already have to store, server-side. Nothing we set follows anybody anywhere. See the cookie policy — it is short because there is little to declare.
• We never learn who your users are. A publisher hands us an opaque identifier they chose. We hold no mapping from it to a person, which is why a data-subject request about an end user has to come through the publisher — we genuinely cannot answer it ourselves.
• Prices stay on their own side. An advertiser's cost per conversion is never visible to a publisher, and a publisher's share is never visible to an advertiser. That is enforced in the software, not promised in a policy.

What we have committed to in writing

Each of these is a real constraint on how the platform behaves, and each has a document behind it rather than a slogan: