OnlyFans management agencies

The research was done by AI agents that open web pages. Some sites refuse them; where that happened we say so. The small numbers point to the source list at the end. Where a figure is our own sum or guess, it is marked “our estimate” and the basis is given.

The claim

Our collection for this scheme holds one tweet, not the usual several dozen¹. We quote it as an example of how the method is promoted. The page judges the scheme, not the person who tweeted.

“pov: you started OFM instead of SMMA”

@patrykrx, posted 15 August 2024, 37,173 views as collected¹⁴¹

“OFM” is short for OnlyFans management. “SMMA” is short for social media marketing agency, another business often promoted on X. “pov” (point of view) posts show a scene and let the caption say what it is meant to depict. The tweet has four photos attached, which we did not view⁴¹. The words alone make no claim about income. They state no commission rate, no number of creators, no cost and no hours¹.

With one tweet and no stated figure, there is no claimed number to test. This page therefore rests on how the method is promoted generally: on course pages, vendor guides and in press reports. For the arithmetic we use two round targets, $1,000 and $10,000 a month.

What the scheme is

OnlyFans and Fanvue are subscription sites where fans pay creators for content and private messages. Most of the content is adult.

An OnlyFans management agency runs a creator’s account for a share of what the creator earns. The agency usually does three things:

• Chatting. Staff called “chatters” answer fans’ private messages in the creator’s name and sell paid content inside those chats. Not every agency does this: one told Vice, “We do not reply to messages on behalf of the creators”²³.
• Marketing. The agency runs social media accounts that send new fans to the creator’s page.
• Account management. Scheduling posts, setting prices and handling the daily routine.

The creator still makes the content. The agency is paid by the creator, not by the platform. OnlyFans’ terms say: “If you are a Creator and someone else assists you with the operation of your Creator account, this does not affect your legal responsibility. Our relationship is with you, and not with any third-party”².

So the mechanism is real and OnlyFans tolerates it. The questions are how much creator income an agency needs to manage, how a newcomer gets it, and what the work involves.

The arithmetic

Step 1: the platform takes 20% first

OnlyFans’ terms say: “Our Fee is calculated as 20% of the total Fan Payment and will be deducted from each Fan Payment.”² The creator receives the other 80%.

Fanvue’s standard split is the same: “the standard Creator Earning Rate is 80% of the gross revenue from Paid-for Services. The remaining 20% is retained by Fanvue as Platform Fees.”⁷ Moving to Fanvue does not change the sums below.

Step 2: the agency’s cut

Sources disagree on the usual cut, and none is a measured average.

• A US class action (a lawsuit brought on behalf of a large group) against OnlyFans and several agencies says: “Creators Inc. takes between 20% and 30% commission on its Creators’ earnings”¹¹. “Creators Inc.” is the complaint’s name for two defendants, Content X, Inc. and Elite Creators LLC¹¹. The complaint gives 20% to 30% for a second agency and about 30% for two more¹¹. These are allegations in a pending case. Most are stated “on information and belief”, meaning the plaintiffs believe them but do not claim direct knowledge. They concern only the companies named in the complaint.
• Reuters reported in 2024: “Some agencies charge a flat fee, but most work on commission, taking 20% to 80% of a model’s total earnings.”¹⁹
• The BBC reported in June 2026: “OFMs take a proportion of the creators’ pre-tax earnings, commonly 50%.” It saw contracts “taking up to 70% of earnings”¹⁷.
• A guide site that promotes agency software describes the model as managing a creator “in exchange for 50% of revenue”⁴⁰.
• A software vendor that sells to agencies writes that some agencies now compete at 5%, where the margin is “almost zero”³⁸.

We use 20%, 30% and 50% below. We assume the cut is taken on what the creator receives after the platform fee. One contract the BBC saw worked that way: it gave the manager “50% of her pre-tax earnings - after OnlyFans had taken its cut”¹⁷. Contracts vary, and we did not read one ourselves.

Step 3: the creator earnings needed

These are our sums. Agency revenue = fan spending x 80% x the agency’s cut. At a 30% cut the agency receives 24 cents of each dollar a fan spends (0.80 x 0.30).

This is agency revenue before chatters’ pay, software and the cost of finding creators. It is the total across all the creators the agency manages.

Step 4: how common such creators are

The pool is large. The audited accounts of OnlyFans’ operator for the year to 30 November 2025 say: “Gross payments processed through the platform rose by $0.6bn, from $7.2bn in 2024 to $7.8bn in 2025”⁶. We read creator payouts in those accounts as $6.2bn, up from $5.7bn⁶. A trade report gives $6.3bn for the same year²⁸. The accounts count 5.063 million creator accounts and 437 million fan accounts⁶.

The average account is small (our estimate). $6.2bn ÷ 5.063 million accounts is about $102 a month for each creator account⁶. That count includes every account not deleted, so it includes dormant ones⁶. A trade report, citing regulatory filings, gives 2.5 million active creators²⁸. On that count the average is about $207 a month (our sum: $6.2bn ÷ 2.5 million ÷ 12). We did not find the 2.5 million figure in the pages of the accounts that we read. Either way, no agency sets out to sign average accounts. What matters is how rare the larger ones are.

How rare the needed creators are. OnlyFans publishes no breakdown of earnings by creator. The best we found is two steps removed from the platform:

• A 2020 self-published study scraped “around one thousand accounts”²⁹. It found: “The median account makes $180 a month” and “The median take-home revenue is $136 per month”²⁹. “Median” means the middle account: half earn more, half less. It found the top 1% of accounts took 33% of the money and the top 10% took 73%²⁹. The author estimated fans from likes per post, which he calls “likely an underestimate”, and multiplied by the subscription price. He says the largest accounts “aren’t in my sample”²⁹.
• An analyst, Matthew Ball, applied those shares to a later year’s payouts in a September 2024 essay. On his sums the top 1% of accounts collected about “$49,000 each” a year and the top 0.1% about “$220,000 each”⁵⁶. That is about $4,100 and $18,300 a month (our division). He notes that OnlyFans “does not disclose its distribution”⁵⁶.

Set against the table, on that estimate:

• $3,333 a month, the creator earnings needed for $1,000 at a 30% cut, is close to the average top-1% account.
• $33,333 a month, needed for $10,000 at a 30% cut, is $400,000 a year. That is above the average top-0.1% account. It can come from one such creator or from about eight average top-1% creators (our division).

Treat this as a rough guide. It rests on a small six-year-old sample.

Large creators exist, in the thousands. A trade report of an OnlyFans announcement in August 2026 says “5,076 creators have brought in at least $1 million” in total since 2016²⁸. Against 5.063 million accounts that is about one account in a thousand (our estimate)⁶²⁸.

Many of them already have an agency. Reuters reports: “Today, many of the top 1% of OnlyFans creators are managed by agencies, according to three agency officials.”¹⁹ Reuters also describes the other route: agencies “typically sign up young women with the purpose of turning them into top OnlyFans models”, and “Many of these models, assisted by chatters, are now among the big earners on the site”¹⁹.

So the sums point one way. An agency that manages ordinary accounts earns close to nothing. The income in the table needs one or two very large creators, or several who each earn thousands a month, whether signed at that level or grown to it.

Step 5: the costs

Chatters are the main cost. The complaint alleges: “On information and belief, most agencies pay Chatters approximately $3–$4 U.S. dollars per hour.”¹¹ The BBC reported in March 2026 on a chatter in the Philippines “earning under $2 per hour and working an 8hr shift five days a week”, and under $4 an hour at a later agency¹⁸. Wired’s reporter was offered $1 an hour plus 6% of sales by one agency and $5 an hour plus 0.5% by another²⁰. Fortune reported shifts of up to 12 hours “for about $3 per hour”²². A guide site gives $3 to $5 an hour plus commission⁴⁰.

Our estimate at $3 to $4 an hour, for one chat seat (one position that must be staffed):

• Round the clock is 720 hours a month (24 x 30). That is $2,160 to $2,880 a month.
• One 8-hour shift every day is 240 hours. That is $720 to $960 a month.

An agency taking $1,000 a month in commission cannot pay for round-the-clock chat. At that size the owner does the chatting.

Software is cheap for small creators and costs more for large ones. Both main tools price by the creator’s earnings, and we could read only the lowest band. Supercreator, a tool for managing fan chats, lists a free plan, $15 per account a month, and an AI chatting plan at $99 per account a month “+5% of AI Net Sales”, for a creator earning under $1,000 a month³⁴. Infloww, a similar tool, says: “Starting at as little as $40 a month you’ll have access to all our features”, for a creator earning under $500 a month³⁵. Prices rise with the creator’s earnings, and the creators an agency needs are in the higher bands³⁴³⁵. Desirely, an AI chat tool, lists plans from EUR 0 with a 20% commission on AI sales up to EUR 89 a month with 8.5%³⁶.

Not priced. We did not price advertising, the social media accounts used to bring in fans, or the cost of recruiting a creator.

What people who tried it report

Nobody publishes outcome data. We found no study, dataset or platform figure on how many people who start an agency sign a creator, earn anything, or last a year. OnlyFans does not track agencies. Its spokesperson told the BBC: “OnlyFans’ relationship is with our creators and fans and we are not connected with, and do not endorse, any third parties including management agencies.”¹⁷ Every income figure for an agency on this page is therefore the agency’s own statement, a seller’s listing, or an allegation in a lawsuit.

The field is crowded. The BBC joined “one of the largest private Telegram groups for agents, called OFM Empire, which has 24,000 members”¹⁷. A long-standing UK creator told the BBC she “receives more messages from OFMs than from fans”, and said: “The concept [of OFMs] is really good, it’s just that there are too many unqualified people”¹⁷. Reuters examined more than 160 agencies in 2024¹⁹. Group sizes are a loose guide: Desirely measured one Discord server “advertised as the largest”, with 25,340 members, and found it “held 21 people when measured” on 29 August 2026³⁹.

Recruiting creators is the hard part. One agency founder published an account of his start. He says he began with “No connections in the creator economy. No team.”²⁴ He writes: “I probably sent over 300 messages”, “got ignored 95% of the time” and “The first three months were brutal.”²⁴ He also writes of his early creators: “One went from $3K per month to $18K in just 90 days.”²⁴ He gives no revenue or profit figure for the agency and offers no proof. The post promotes his agency’s management service, so read it as an agency’s own promotional statement²⁴.

One owner who did well closed after a year. Reuters spoke to the co-founder of a Dutch agency that had more than 50 models at its peak. It reports: “He wouldn’t disclose how much he earned. He dissolved the agency after a lucrative but grueling year, he said.” He is quoted: “People think OnlyFans is like a free money-printing system. But that’s far from the truth. It’s really hard work.”¹⁹

Self-reported scale in the press. An agency owner told Vice in 2023: “We currently work with 50 creators, with an average total monthly net revenue of [around] £2.5 million combined”²³. The pound figure is as Vice printed it. He is the same manager whose former models made the allegations Rolling Stone reported in 2022, described below²⁵; he told Vice “I have been falsely attacked”²³. An account manager at another agency told Vice she manages four creators “who earn up to £16,000 per month” and said: “Personally, I earn 15–25 percent off of each creator”²³. Vice did not say it checked any of these figures.

The chat work does raise sales for creators who are already popular. A woman who runs a chatting operation in the Philippines with her husband showed Reuters screenshots of one model’s monthly earnings. Reuters writes that the figures “indicate that” the couple “had generated $1.5 million in revenue for the model in eight months”¹⁹. She said she earns $800 to $1,000 a month¹⁹. Rest of World reported in 2025 on a chatter selling more than $10,000 a month and on agencies training AI on chat logs to replace weaker chatters²¹.

Press investigations report control and coercion by some managers. The BBC spoke to 60 UK creators in 2026. Its finding was that managers “are sometimes exploitative and threatening”¹⁷. In the 24,000-member agents’ group it found “advice on signing creators, taking control of their accounts and reaping profits - often using the threat of violence”¹⁷. It reports: “Several of the 60 creators we spoke to say their managers had accessed their accounts and then lied about their earnings to pocket more money.”¹⁷ Contracts it saw “impose fines on creators who try to leave contracts early”¹⁷. The agencies are not named and no reply from them is quoted.

The UK’s anti-slavery commissioner told the BBC that one creator’s account showed “recognised signs of exploitation - control, coercion, financial pressure and an inability to leave freely”, and that managers “should face greater scrutiny and potentially be licensed”¹⁷. Ofcom, the UK’s online safety regulator, called the testimony “deeply concerning”¹⁷. OnlyFans called the suggestion that it turns a blind eye “unfounded”¹⁷. The creator at the centre of the report later signed with a different agency, which she says makes her “feel a lot better”¹⁷. Creators still buy the service.

An older dispute over the cut. In 2022 Rolling Stone reported that one former model alleged a manager took 60 to 70 percent of her income; another said she had agreed to give him 66 percent²⁵. The manager said the majority of his 30 models had positive experiences and put the disputes down to miscommunication and inexperience²⁵.

Insiders’ own view of the odds. A software vendor and a guide site that promotes agency software both put the failure rate high. The guide site writes: “for every agency owner buying a Lamborghini, there are 50 who failed because they got their bank accounts frozen or their creators poached” (signed away by a rival)⁴⁰. The vendor writes that 80% of agencies created in 2026 will not last past their sixth month³⁸. Neither gives any data. Treat both as opinion from interested parties.

We could not open Reddit or the forum threads where newcomers post day-by-day results, so first-hand accounts from people who tried and stopped are missing from this page.

What the rules allow now

What the platforms permit

Helping a real creator is allowed on OnlyFans. Beyond the clause quoted above, the contract between fan and creator says: “The Fan acknowledges that third parties may assist Creators in operating their accounts and in Creator Interactions.”³ That clause is why chatting on a creator’s behalf is tolerated there.

Fanvue’s rules point the other way. Its terms say: “Your Account is personal to you.”⁹ Its community guidelines say users must not “Sell, rent, share or transfer their account, or content obtained via Fanvue, with anyone else” and must not “Misrepresent themselves, impersonate others, or mislead Users”⁸. On its face that conflicts with handing an account to an agency’s chatters. We did not find how Fanvue applies it to agencies, and its help centre was not read.

The agency has no standing with the platform. It has no account of its own, no payout and no right of appeal. Money reaches the creator first². An OnlyFans spokesperson told Cosmopolitan UK in 2024 that the company “is not affiliated with and does not endorse any third party or agency”⁴⁸. Claiming that OnlyFans has endorsed you is banned by its acceptable use policy⁴.

Accounts can be suspended and earnings withheld. The terms say: “At any time, without warning or Notice and for as long as is necessary to review the relevant facts, we may: (i) suspend or delete your account and/or your Content; (ii) pause Fan Payments which would have been due during the suspension period; (iii) withhold any part of your Creator Earnings”². OnlyFans can also close any account on 30 days’ notice for any reason². An agency’s income from a creator can stop in one decision it cannot contest.

Refunds come out of earnings. On OnlyFans, a refunded or charged-back payment is deducted from the creator’s earnings². (A chargeback is a payment a fan reverses through their card company.) Fanvue goes further: “If your account exceeds a 1.5% dispute rate (including chargebacks and refunds) over a 30-day period, we may apply a $50 USD (FIFTY US DOLLARS) administrative fee per dispute thereafter.”⁷ Fanvue holds earnings for a standard 7 days, which it can extend to 28⁷.

AI creators. OnlyFans requires a real, identity-checked person behind each creator account. Its accounts say the terms do not allow “wholly AI generated Creator profiles as all profiles must be associated with a verified human Creator”⁶. Its terms say AI content must be “clearly and conspicuously captioned as AI Generated Content with a signifier such as #ai, or #AIGenerated”². Fanvue allows AI-generated media with a label: “All AI-generated media must include a clear and prominent disclosure”⁸. It bans AI copies of a real person without that person’s documented consent⁸. We have a separate page on AI adult subscription models.

Referral income is mostly closed to agencies. OnlyFans pays “a referral payment of 5% on Fan Payments generated by the Referred Creator in the 12 months after” they join, “up to a maximum referral payment of US$50,000 per Referred Creator”⁵. The same terms exclude the agency case: “No referral payments will be made to you on earnings in any account which we determine is owned or is operated by you, or is owned or operated by a Referred Creator with whom you have a commercial relationship.”⁵ A class action filed on 12 August 2026 alleges that OnlyFans cut referral payments it had promised for life; it is pending and the claims are allegations, read on the plaintiffs’ law firm’s page⁴⁹. We cover referral programmes on a separate page.

The marketing side depends on other platforms. Meta’s rules for Facebook and Instagram list as sexual solicitation: “Content that asks for, offers or provides methods of contact to acquire pornographic material, or contains usernames or links to pornographic websites.”⁵³ 404 Media reported in April 2024 that Meta deleted Instagram accounts with 94,000 to 258,000 followers that sent traffic to Fanvue and Patreon using face-swapped videos of real women, and that Fanvue removed one such account⁵⁴. We did not read the rules of X, Reddit or TikTok.

The lawsuits over chatting

The practice that makes the money is the one being tested in court.

The main case. N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd et al. is a class action filed on 29 July 2024 in a US federal court in California by OnlyFans subscribers¹²¹³. It names OnlyFans’ operator and at least eight management agencies, including Unruly Agency, Behave Agency, Moxy Management, A.S.H. Agency, Verge Agency, Content X and Elite Creators¹¹¹³¹⁴. It alleges that fans paid believing they were talking to the creator when agency chatters were replying¹¹¹².

Where it stands, from the docket (the court’s list of filings) and two reports. We did not open the orders themselves.

• On 12 December 2025 the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss (requests to throw the claims out before trial) the first amended complaint, with permission to amend¹³¹⁶. A law professor’s summary quotes the court: “Fenix Defendants made explicit disclosures regarding the use of third parties”¹⁶.
• On 19 May 2026 the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. It said that if the plaintiffs did not amend, “the court will dismiss Fenix Defendants from this case”¹³. Bloomberg Law reported this as the operator being dismissed, and wrote that a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a US privacy law, “survives against the chatter agencies they sued, but not Fenix International Ltd., OnlyFans’ operator”¹⁵. We read only the opening of that article, before the paywall.
• A claim “surviving” means the court let it continue. It is not a finding that the agencies did anything wrong.
• The plaintiffs then filed a fourth amended complaint on 2 July 2026 against all defendants and asked for leave to amend it again¹³. The operator opposes that request¹³. It and the agencies’ motions to dismiss are set for hearing on 22 October 2026¹³.

So the court has so far ruled for the platform on the claims against it, and the plaintiffs are trying to re-plead. Nothing has been decided against any agency. The claims are alleged and the case is pending. We did not read the agencies’ replies. The case concerns only the companies named in it. The BBC noted in March 2026 that of legal cases over chatters, “So far none have succeeded.”¹⁸

Other cases. A second subscriber class action, brought by two Illinois residents against OnlyFans’ parent companies, was reported in April 2025; we read only the free opening of the report and not the filing⁵⁰. Reuters asked legal experts in 2024 whether the terms’ disclosure protects the company: “Two legal experts said that disclaimer might protect the company from liability. Six others disagreed.”¹⁹

Suits from creators and workers. BuzzFeed News reported in 2022 that two creators sued Unruly, alleging it pressured them towards more explicit content; that three other creator suits, filed anonymously, named Unruly and Behave; and that workers had sued Unruly over pay²⁷. Unruly’s lawyer called the two creators’ claims “blatantly false” and “wildly inaccurate”, described the matter as a contractual dispute and said both women had breached their contracts²⁷. The article quotes no reply to the pay claims and none from Behave²⁷. The claims are allegations, and we did not check the outcomes. They concern only the companies named.

Where chatters work. Reuters reports a spokesperson for the Philippine government’s information technology department saying that chatting as someone else can be prosecuted there under a computer-crime law¹⁹.

Laws aimed at the manager’s role

Sweden. Since 1 July 2025, Swedish law on buying sexual acts and on procuring (profiting from someone else’s sale of sexual acts) covers remote acts. The parliament’s notice says the offences “will be expanded to include acts carried out remotely, that is, without physical contact, for example, via a webcam.”⁵¹ A legal summary published by the European Audiovisual Observatory says this “also makes it illegal to promote or profit from such acts”, where “the person paying for the acts must be able to influence the content”⁵¹. That describes live and custom-request sales. Pre-recorded material is outside the rule, according to the same summary⁵¹. We did not read the statute and found no case applying it to an agency.

France. On 10 February 2026 the French Senate adopted, by 258 votes to 65, a bill against online sexual exploitation that targets people acting as “agent” or “manager” on OnlyFans and the French site Mym⁵². As reported, it covers coercion, deception or abuse of vulnerability to obtain sexual content, not ordinary agency work⁵². It had passed the Senate only when we read about it.

Regulators. We found no action by the US Federal Trade Commission or another regulator against an OnlyFans management agency or course. The nearest are FTC cases about other paid business-opportunity programmes⁵⁵. They concern only the companies named in them, and none concerns OnlyFans.

Who makes money from it

In order of certainty.

1. The platform. OnlyFans takes 20% of every payment before anyone else². Its operator reported revenue of $1,553 million and profit before tax of $715 million for the year to November 2025⁶.

2. Agencies that hold high-earning creators. See “The upside” below. Their figures are their own, a seller’s, or a plaintiff’s.

3. Sellers to people who want to start an agency.

• The account in our collection. The collector noted “OFM link in bio”¹. Read on 10 October 2026, the profile had 12,059 followers, and its bio says “OF Management / Crypto” and links to a Telegram channel and a link page⁴¹. The link page describes the account holder as “Founder of the #1 OFM & Crypto Community” and has three buttons: a free Telegram group, a YouTube channel and “PRIVATE GROUP ACCESS”⁴². That button leads to a checkout for “OFM Penthouse VIP Access”, described as “The #1 group to start & scale OFM with A-Z information, networking chat, weekly calls & more. (and crypto)”⁴³. The checkout showed a one-time payment of $97 plus tax; it showed $8.73 of estimated tax for our location⁴³. The checkout links to the seller’s terms, which we did not open⁴³. The public Telegram channel’s recent posts were mostly crypto trade calls⁴⁴. We did not see inside the paid group. We do not know whether the account holder runs an agency.
• Courses. Desirely keeps a directory of 43 OFM courses. Of the 19 sales pages it could read, 9 state a price, from EUR 47 to EUR 997, with a median of EUR 197³⁷. It writes: “Only 47% of the pages we could read state a price without booking a call.”³⁷ Desirely sells software to agencies and promotes its own free course on the same page, so it is an interested party.
• One course page we opened. The address of a French course, OnlyCash, returned two different pages. Fetched directly, it is a sales page listing “997€ TTC (au lieu de 1 200€)”, that is EUR 997 including tax against a stated usual price of EUR 1,200⁴⁶. The page claims “+650 membres satisfaits” (more than 650 satisfied members) and a 90-day “Rentabilisé ou Remboursé” (profitable or refunded) guarantee⁴⁶. These are the seller’s statements. Through a reader service’s stored copy, the same address showed an application form titled “Recrutement Reveal”. It offers at least six months of coaching up to ”+ 5 000€ de profits mensuels stables et récurrents” (more than EUR 5,000 of stable, recurring monthly profit), asks applicants how much capital they can invest, and shows no price⁴⁶. We could not tell which page is current.
• Higher prices reported by buyers. On the Trustpilot page of one OFM coaching programme, rated 4 out of 5, several reviewers say they paid $8,000⁴⁵. One says he paid $2,000 for lifetime access⁴⁵. Several say a later version costs $20,000 to join, or $500 a month for existing members⁴⁵. Other reviewers on the same page praise the programme⁴⁵. These are unverified customer statements. The page we read showed no reply from the company, and we did not ask it for one.
• A business that sells the method. A broker of adult-industry businesses lists an unnamed “OFM Builder Business” that “provides the tools and assistance to succeed in the OnlyFans Management Space (OFM)”³². The listing says: “Primary income is driven by high-ticket client sales that generate significant upfront cash inflows” and cites “$7M+ lifetime advertising spend”³². (“High-ticket” means expensive, usually sold on a call.) It shows $4,414,555 in revenue and $117,536 a month in profit, at an asking price of $2,245,000³². These are the seller’s figures. Its customers are people who want to start an agency, not fans.
• An agency sold as a kit. A listing on the marketplace Flippa offers an “Onlyfans agency to sell including : website ( RANK 1 ON GOOGLE for the french version ), all assets, courses about Onlyfans agency and 1 month 24/7 support”³³. Its summary describes “a package of digital assets like PDFs, videos, scripts, and contracts” and a model “potentially earning 50% of a content creator’s monthly revenue”³³. It shows “Monthly Profit USD $21,960 /mo” with a “Profit Margin 98%”, a profit multiple (price divided by profit) of 0.2x and a revenue multiple of 0.1x³³. Those figures do not fit together, and a 98% margin does not fit an agency that pays chatters. The profit is the seller’s unverified figure. The listing shows the reserve met and hides the price³³. If the multiple is on a year’s profit, the price was about $53,000 (our estimate: 0.2 x $21,960 x 12). We do not count this as evidence of what an agency earns.

4. Tool vendors. They charge a monthly fee for each account, rising with the creator’s earnings, and often a share of sales³⁴³⁵³⁶.

5. Chatters, modestly. Reported pay runs from under $2 to about $5 an hour, sometimes with a small commission¹⁸²⁰²². One woman who runs a chatting operation in the Philippines told Reuters she earns $800 to $1,000 a month and that a skilled chatter on commission for a popular model can earn up to $3,000¹⁹. Reuters gives the average monthly wage there as $330¹⁹. One chatter told Vice his average is £500 a month, his best “up to £2,500”, and that many chatters “make as little as £250 per month”²³.

The upside

Agencies with large creators do make large sums. None of the figures below was audited or checked by a journalist against payment records. Each is marked by where it comes from.

Allegations in the class action

These come from the plaintiffs’ complaint. They are unproven and concern only the companies named.

• “Creators Inc. takes between 20% and 30% commission on its Creators’ earnings and has Represented Creators earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.”¹¹
• “Moxy manages over 100 OnlyFans accounts on behalf of individual Creators, with the majority of those Creators making $40,000–$80,000 per month”¹¹. This is stated on information and belief.

Our sum: a 20% to 30% cut of one account earning $40,000 to $80,000 a month is $8,000 to $24,000 a month. One creator of that size is enough for the $10,000 target.

Businesses listed for sale

A broker of adult-industry businesses marks these listings “Verified”. The page does not say what was checked, and the accounts are behind a login. The figures are the sellers’. Asking prices are not sales.

The first is the largest outcome we found: about $3.8 million of profit a year on the seller’s figures, a margin of about 35% (our division)³⁰. It took four years and a workforce of more than 500.

The second shows a fast start followed by a drop of more than half within two months, in a business that sells chat labour to agencies and creators³¹. Its numbers are not internally consistent. The monthly profits listed for March to September add up to about EUR 106,500 (our sum), more than the stated total, and the listing’s headline shows a different profit, ”$ 13,820 /mo”³¹.

How buyers price this income. The broker’s asking prices are 1.6 to 2 times one year’s stated profit (our division)³⁰³¹³². That is a low price relative to stated profit. It may reflect that an agency’s creators can leave; we cannot tell from the listings.

People’s own statements

These are set out under “What people who tried it report”. None was checked.

• An agency owner’s 50 creators with about £2.5 million a month combined, an average of £50,000 a creator (our division)²³. He is the manager whose former models made the allegations Rolling Stone reported; he told Vice he had been “falsely attacked”²³²⁵.
• An account manager’s 15 to 25 percent of four creators “who earn up to £16,000 per month”²³. If that is the four creators’ combined ceiling, her share is at most £2,400 to £4,000 a month (our sum). Vice does not say whether the figure is each or combined.
• A founder’s claim that one creator went “from $3K per month to $18K in just 90 days”, in a post that promotes his agency²⁴.
• A Dutch co-founder’s “lucrative but grueling” year with more than 50 models, with no figure given¹⁹.
• $1.5 million in eight months on one model’s account, from screenshots shown to Reuters¹⁹. That is creator revenue, not agency profit.

How concentrated the income is

No source gives agency earnings by rank. For creators, Step 4 gives the only estimates we found: on Ball’s sums the top 10% of accounts averaged about $11,000 a year, the top 1% about $49,000 and the top 0.1% about $220,000⁵⁶. Reuters cites an estimate by Bedbible, a commercial research site, that the top 0.1% earn on average about $2.3 million a year and that “most creators make less than $100 a month”¹⁹. The two top-0.1% estimates differ about tenfold, which shows how weak the data is. We did not open Bedbible. Agency income follows the creators an agency holds, so it is likely to be at least as concentrated. That is our inference, not a measurement.

A realistic good result in the first year or two (our estimate)

No source measures newcomers’ results, so this is built from vendor arithmetic and the sums above.

• Vendor’s sums for one creator. Desirely works an example: a creator grossing EUR 5,000 a month at a 20% cut pays EUR 1,000, of which about EUR 550 goes on chatting³⁸. It writes: “An agency generating €1,000 to €2,000 in monthly commission per model with solid processes is in a much better position than an unstructured ten-model agency.”³⁸ It also writes: “Two to three models are enough to start.”³⁸
• Our estimate of a good result. Three creators each receiving about $4,000 a month, at a cut of 20% to 50%, give the agency $2,400 to $6,000 a month before costs. One daily 8-hour chat shift at $3 to $4 an hour takes $720 to $960 of that. At this size the owner usually chats personally.
• How hard that is. On Ball’s estimate the top 1% of accounts average about $49,000 a year⁵⁶. So each of the three creators in this example is roughly a top-1% account, signed or grown by a newcomer competing with a 24,000-member agents’ group¹⁷.
• How long it takes. We found no data beyond one founder’s three months and 300 messages²⁴.
• The common result is unknown. Given the number of people trying, and creators who say they get more offers from managers than messages from fans, many who start probably sign no creator who earns enough to matter¹⁷. That is our inference; nobody has counted.

What it takes to compete

What the agencies that succeed have

1. Creators who earn well, or can be grown to it. This is most of the business. The agencies in the upside section hold creators earning tens of thousands a month¹¹²³³⁰. Reuters describes agencies signing new models and building them up, and one founder claims a creator grew sixfold in 90 days; growth claims are unverified¹⁹²⁴. Cold messages are the route open to anyone, and creators are flooded with them¹⁷²⁴.
2. A chat operation that sells. Messaging in the creator’s voice at all hours is what lifts a popular creator’s revenue¹⁹. Running it means hiring, training and supervising staff across time zones on sales targets¹⁸²¹.
3. The ability to bring in fans. A creator with no traffic has nothing for chatters to sell to. Promotion runs on platforms that restrict adult links and can remove accounts⁵³⁵⁴.
4. Money and time before income. Software starts at $15 to $99 an account a month for the smallest creators and costs more for the creators an agency needs³⁴³⁵. One guide site puts the minimum start-up cost at about $1,000⁴⁰. The larger cost is months of unpaid recruiting and chatting.
5. A contract and a creator who stays. The platform pays the creator, and the creator can change the password². One guide site names creators being poached as a main cause of failure⁴⁰. Creators have sued agencies²⁷.
6. Acceptance of the legal position. Staff messaging fans as the creator is the conduct at issue in a pending US case against agencies¹³¹⁵. Sweden has made profiting from live and custom remote sexual acts an offence⁵¹. An agency owner carries that exposure. The court has so far ruled for the platform on the claims against it, and the plaintiffs are trying to re-plead¹³¹⁶.
7. A clean way of working in a field under scrutiny. The BBC found some operators using coercion, and licensing of managers is being discussed in the UK¹⁷. France is legislating against coercive “managers”⁵².
8. Comfort with the work itself. This is adult-industry sales. The product sold in chat is paid sexual content and the appearance of personal attention from the creator¹⁹²⁰.

What it costs

• Solo start: software from $0 to $40 per creator a month at the lowest earnings band, plus your own hours³⁴³⁵. Any course is extra: published prices run from EUR 47 to EUR 997, and buyers report four- and five-figure prices for programmes sold on a call³⁷⁴⁵.
• With hired chat: $720 to $2,880 a month for each chat seat (our estimate, Step 5)¹¹. Desirely puts a human chatter at EUR 800 to EUR 2,000 a month³⁸.
• At scale: the largest listing keeps about 35% of revenue as profit, with a workforce of more than 500³⁰.

How to tell early which side you are on

These checks are our judgement, built from the figures above.

• Do you already know a creator who earns thousands a month and would hand you the account? If the plan starts with cold messages to strangers, you are where the 24,000 members of one agents’ group are¹⁷.
• What does your first creator receive a month? Multiply by your cut. Under about $3,300 a month at a 30% cut, the agency takes less than $1,000 before any cost (Step 3).
• Can the commission pay for chat? If one daily shift ($720 to $960) is more than your commission, you are the chatter.
• Which platform, and where are the creator and the fans? Fanvue’s guidelines bar sharing an account⁸. Live and custom sales involving Sweden fall under its procuring law as summarised⁵¹.
• Does the plan need you to buy something first? The sums on this page are free to check. No course or community we found publishes what share of its members sign a creator or reach any income level.

What we did not verify

• How many people who try this succeed. No source measures it. We cannot give a percentage, a median income, a time to first income or a survival rate.
• The tweet. We did not view its four photos or any thread. The collection holds one tweet, so nothing here describes a pattern among promoters. The live tweet and the profile were read through a mirror service because x.com refused our tools.
• What the quoted account offers beyond the checkout page. We did not see inside the paid group, its member count or its results, or whether the account holder runs an agency. The seller’s terms and refund terms were not opened.
• Any agency’s real accounts. No audited statement, filed accounts or press report that checked an agency’s books was found. The broker’s “Verified” label is unexplained, the accounts are behind a login, and asking prices are not completed sales. One broker listing’s figures do not add up. The Flippa price and sale date are hidden.
• Growth claims. That an agency can grow a small creator into a large one is reported by Reuters in general terms and claimed by one founder. We found no checked example.
• Agency cuts and chatter pay. The 20% to 30% figures are allegations in a pending complaint, mostly on information and belief. The other figures are journalists’ reports or individuals’ statements. We read no agency contract or rate card.
• The court record. We read docket entries, not the orders of December 2025 or May 2026. We relied on a law professor’s summary and the free opening of a Bloomberg Law article. Researchers counted the agency defendants as eight or nine; we write “at least eight”. The agencies’ replies, the second subscriber case, and the outcome of the 2022 suits against Unruly and Behave were not read in court files. A press release said to report a dismissal of claims against Unruly could not be found again and is not used.
• Sweden and France. The Swedish statute was not read; the reading that profiting is illegal comes from a legal summary. Whether it has been applied to any agency is unknown. The French bill’s status after the Senate vote and its final wording were not checked.
• Creator earnings. OnlyFans publishes no distribution. The only one we opened is from 2020, covers about a thousand accounts, estimates fans from likes and leaves out the largest accounts. Ball’s figures apply its shares to a later year and he notes the inputs are not consistent. The 2.5 million active creators and the 5,076 creators with $1 million or more come from a trade report, not the announcement or filings. Bedbible’s estimates were read in Reuters only.
• The OnlyFans accounts. The filing is a scanned image. Figures were read from the first pages of the strategic report (the directors’ written summary) by eye and by text recognition. We read payouts as $6.2bn; a trade report says $6.3bn, and we did not resolve the difference. The remaining pages were not read.
• Pages read by another route. onlyfans.com, the plaintiffs’ law firm, Vice, Fortune, BuzzFeed News, Flippa, Trustpilot, Supercreator and the guide sites were read through a reader service that fetches the page for us. Reuters’ site refused us; its report was read in a copy republished by a Philippine news site. The March 2026 BBC article opened for one of our researchers and not for others.
• Dates of policy pages. OnlyFans’ terms say “Last updated: August 2024”; read through a reader, we could not confirm this is the current version. Our researchers disagree on whether Fanvue’s legal pages show a date.
• Fanvue. Its help centre, and how it applies its account-sharing rule to agencies, were not read. Its terms allow a temporary higher share for new creators without stating the rate. Third-party pages giving Fanvue’s fee as 15% were not checked and conflict with its own terms.
• Prices. Infloww’s and Supercreator’s prices above the lowest earnings band were not readable. Course prices come from an interested party’s directory, except one address that returned two different pages. The Trustpilot statements about one programme are unverified.
• Forums. Reddit and BlackHatWorld refused our tools. This is the largest gap in accounts from people who tried.
• Costs and tax. Advertising, social media accounts, recruiting, payment processing and banking were not priced. The agency’s tax and the status of its chatters as workers were not checked.
• Other platforms’ rules. Only Meta’s policy on adult links was read, and the report of its account removals is from 2024.
• Regulators. We searched US federal sources and found French and Swedish material. UK and other national regulators were not searched.
• Whether the people named have seen this page. The people and companies named here were not contacted before publication.

Sources

“Read at source” means we opened the page itself on 10 October 2026, directly or through a reader service that fetches the page for us; the route is noted where a reader was used. “Secondary” means we read an article or summary about the source. “Estimate” means our own sum.

1. Does It Pay collection of 1 tweet on this scheme, collected 2026-10-06; the tweet is linked above. Read from our collected copy on 2026-10-10.
2. OnlyFans, Terms of Use. https://onlyfans.com/terms . Page says “Last updated: August 2024”. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service (direct reading refused).
3. OnlyFans, Contract between Fan and Creator. https://onlyfans.com/contract . “Last updated: August 2024”. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service.
4. OnlyFans, Acceptable Use Policy. https://onlyfans.com/acceptable-use-policy . “Last updated: September 2025”. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service.
5. OnlyFans, Referral Program Terms. https://onlyfans.com/referral-program-terms . “Last updated: August 2024”. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service.
6. Fenix International Limited, group accounts for the year ended 2025-11-30, Companies House. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10354575/filing-history . Filed 2026-09-20. Read at source on 2026-10-10 (scanned document; strategic report pages only). Averages per account are our estimate.
7. Fanvue, Creator Terms and Creator Earnings and Payouts. https://legal.fanvue.com/creator-terms and https://legal.fanvue.com/creator-earnings-payouts . One researcher saw “Updated 19 September 2026” and “22 April 2026”; others saw no date. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
8. Fanvue, Community Guidelines (AI-generated media). https://legal.fanvue.com/community-guidelines . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
9. Fanvue, Terms and Conditions. https://legal.fanvue.com/terms-conditions . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
10. Fanvue, Creator referral and affiliate terms. https://legal.fanvue.com/creator-referral-affiliate . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Not cited in the text.
11. First Amended Class Action Complaint, N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd et al., C.D. Cal. 8:24-cv-01655, Document 118. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.935040/gov.uscourts.cacd.935040.118.0.pdf . 2025-04-23. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Allegations in a pending case.
12. Class Action Complaint in the same case, Document 1. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.935040/gov.uscourts.cacd.935040.1.0.pdf . 2024-07-29. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Allegations in a pending case.
13. CourtListener docket for the same case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68990373/nz-v-fenix-international-limited/?order_by=desc . Entries to 2026-10-09. Read at source on 2026-10-10. The docket entries were read; the orders themselves were not.
14. Hagens Berman (plaintiffs’ law firm), case page on the OnlyFans chatter class action. https://hbsslaw.com/cases/onlyfans-chatters . Published 2024-07-30. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. One side’s account.
15. Bloomberg Law, report on the dismissal of OnlyFans’ operator from the chatter class action. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/onlyfans-operator-dismissed-from-chatter-scam-class-action . 2026-05-22. Secondary: opening paragraphs only (paywall); the court order was not opened.
16. Eric Goldman, Technology and Marketing Law Blog, summary of N.Z. v. Fenix Int’l Ltd. (C.D. Cal., 12 December 2025). https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/12/onlyfans-defeats-chatter-scam-claim-n-z-v-fenix.htm . 2025-12-21. Secondary: the blog was read on 2026-10-10; the order was not.
17. BBC News, investigation into OnlyFans managers. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c932gpk2l1do . 2026-06-15. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
18. BBC News, Chris Vallance, report on an OnlyFans chatter’s pay. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq571g9gd4lo . 2026-03-11. Read at source on 2026-10-10 by one researcher; others were refused and read a syndicated copy at https://www.aol.com/articles/icky-heartbreaking-2-per-hour-000445310.html (secondary).
19. Reuters special report on OnlyFans agencies and chatters, syndicated copy at Interaksyon (Philippine Star). https://interaksyon.philstar.com/trends-spotlights/2024/07/31/280757/onlyfans-porn-juggernaut-fueled-by-a-deception/ . 2024-07-31. Secondary: reuters.com refused us; the syndicated copy was read on 2026-10-10 through a reader service.
20. Wired, first-person report on working as an OnlyFans chatter. https://www.wired.com/story/i-went-undercover-secret-onlyfans-chatter-wasnt-pretty/ . 2024-05-15. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
21. Rest of World, report on chatters and AI chat tools. https://restofworld.org/2025/onlyfans-ai-dm-bots . 2025-08-20. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
22. Fortune, report on AI and OnlyFans chat work. https://fortune.com/2024/04/05/ai-is-coming-for-the-onlyfans-chat-industry . 2024-04-05. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. Its pay figure is marked “reportedly”.
23. Vice, report on OnlyFans management agencies and chatters. https://www.vice.com/en/article/onlyfans-management-agency-chatters . 2023-10-24. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. Figures are interviewees’ own statements; pound amounts are as Vice printed them.
24. Vocal, “My journey building an Only Fans agency” (agency founder’s own account). https://vocal.media/journal/my-journey-building-an-only-fans-agency . Undated; shown as published 10 months before 2026-10-10. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Self-reported, no proof.
25. Rolling Stone, report on OnlyFans model management. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/onlyfans-model-management-industry-exploitation-1073615/ . 2022-01-18. Read at source on 2026-10-10, directly and through a reader service.
26. MEL Magazine, report on OnlyFans management companies. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/onlyfans-management-companies . 2021-12-28. Secondary: read through a summarising tool on 2026-10-10. Not cited in the text.
27. BuzzFeed News, report on lawsuits involving Unruly and Behave agencies. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/unruly-suit-instagram-models . 2022-03-08. Secondary: a press report of lawsuits, read on 2026-10-10 through a reader service; court files not opened.
28. Tubefilter, report of OnlyFans’ announcement on million-dollar earners. https://www.tubefilter.com/2026/08/26/onlyfans-million-dollar-earners-keily-blair-earnings/ . 2026-08-26. Secondary: the article was read on 2026-10-10; the announcement and the filings it cites were not.
29. XSRUS, “The Economics of OnlyFans”. https://xsrus.com/the-economics-of-onlyfans . 2020-04-24. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Self-published study; the author writes that he scraped “around one thousand accounts”.
30. Broker.xxx, listing 6770, chat management agency. https://crm.broker.xxx/listings/6770/high-margin-creator-revenue-optimization-agency-OFM . 2026-03-13. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Seller’s figures; asking price.
31. Broker.xxx, listing 6533, OnlyFans chatting service. https://crm.broker.xxx/listings/6533/onlyfans-chatting-service . 2023-11-08. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Seller’s figures.
32. Broker.xxx, listing 6660, “OFM Builder Business”. https://crm.broker.xxx/listings/6660/ofm-builder-business . 2025-12-05. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Seller’s figures; asking price.
33. Flippa, listing 11384990, OnlyFans agency website, assets and courses. https://flippa.com/11384990 . Undated; shown on 2026-10-10 with the reserve met and the sold price hidden. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. Seller’s figures; the implied price is our estimate.
34. Supercreator, pricing. https://www.supercreator.app/pricing . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service; prices above the lowest earnings band were not readable.
35. Infloww, pricing. https://infloww.com/pricing . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10; prices above the lowest earnings band were not readable.
36. Desirely, pricing. https://www.desirely.co/en/pricing . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
37. Desirely, directory of OFM courses. https://www.desirely.co/en/ofm-courses . Pages checked 2026-09-02. Secondary: a vendor’s survey of course pages; the course pages were not opened.
38. Desirely, “10 mistakes” article on why agencies fail. https://www.desirely.co/en/blog/10-mistakes-onlyfans-agencies-fail . Published 2026-04-06, updated 2026-09-01. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. Vendor’s illustrative figures and opinion.
39. Desirely, measurement of OFM Discord servers. https://www.desirely.co/en/blog/onlyfans-management-discord-servers . Measured 2026-08-29. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
40. OFM Tools, “How to start an OnlyFans agency”. https://ofm-tools.com/how-to-start-onlyfans-agency . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. A guide site that promotes agency software; its opinion.
41. Tweet and X profile of @patrykrx, read through the FxTwitter mirror. https://api.fxtwitter.com/patrykrx/status/1824205158911221811 . Tweet posted 2024-08-15. Read on 2026-10-10 (x.com refused our tools).
42. Link page linked from that profile. https://link.me/@patrykxrm . Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service.
43. Whop checkout for “OFM Penthouse VIP Access”. https://whop.com/checkout/plan_lwt6e7I7R28aB . Read at source on 2026-10-10.
44. Telegram channel linked from that profile. https://t.me/s/patrykcalls . Latest post 2026-10-08. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
45. Trustpilot, reviews of one OFM coaching programme. https://www.trustpilot.com/review/fameu.co . Reviews dated 2025-09-10 to 2026-05-05. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. Unverified customer statements; the company was not asked for a reply.
46. Fortumedia, page at the OnlyCash address. https://www.fortumedia.com/onlycash . Undated. Read at source on 2026-10-10 by two routes that returned different pages: the course sales page when fetched directly, and a cached snapshot of a coaching application form through a reader service.
47. OnlyFans blog, post for agencies and talent managers, archived copy. https://web.archive.org/web/20220811014012/https://blog.onlyfans.com/unlocking-the-earning-potential-for-agencies-and-talent-managers/ . 2019-02-20. Read at source (archive) on 2026-10-10. Not cited in the text.
48. Cosmopolitan UK, report on OnlyFans agencies quoting an OnlyFans spokesperson. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a60637412/onlyfans-agencies/ . 2024-06-24. Secondary.
49. Hagens Berman, case page on the OnlyFans referral programme class action (Hardesty v. Fenix, C.D. Cal. 8:26-cv-02189). https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/onlyfans-referral-program-commission-class-action . Filed 2026-08-12. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service. One side’s account of a pending case.
50. 404 Media, report on a second subscriber class action brought by two Illinois residents. https://www.404media.co/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-realized-they-might-not-actually-be-talking-to-models/ . 2025-04-01. Secondary: free opening of the article only; the filing was not read.
51. Swedish Riksdag, news item on the law change. https://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/articles/2025/may/20/tougher-approach-to-sexual-violations-fraud_cmsf1c47539-5c25-4e90-954a-21cbec69b651en/ . 2025-05-20. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Interpretation: European Audiovisual Observatory, IRIS 2025-7:1/10, https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/10354 (secondary).
52. Public Sénat, report on the Senate vote on the bill against online sexual exploitation. https://www.publicsenat.fr/actualites/politique/onlyfans-mym-dans-un-climat-parfois-tendu-le-senat-vote-un-texte-contre-lexploitation-sexuelle-en-ligne . 2026-02-10. Secondary.
53. Meta, Community Standards on sexual solicitation. https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/sexual-solicitation/ . Page date not captured. Read at source on 2026-10-10 through a reader service.
54. 404 Media, report on AI Instagram accounts using other people’s videos. https://www.404media.co/email/d72b3844-9d62-4961-b52f-86ba9f237480/ . 2024-04-09. Read at source on 2026-10-10.
55. US Federal Trade Commission, press release on a settlement with a seller of business-opportunity programmes (Growth Cave). https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-secures-settlement-banning-growth-cave-defendants-marketing-selling-business-opportunities . 2026-01-27. Read at source on 2026-10-10. Not about OnlyFans.
56. Matthew Ball, “Breaking Down OnlyFans’ Stunning Economics”. https://matthewball.co/all/ofpl . 2024-09-08. Read at source on 2026-10-10. An analyst’s estimate that applies the 2020 study’s shares²⁹ to a later year’s payouts; monthly figures are our division.

Corrections

If you are quoted or named on this page and think something is wrong, want your reply shown beside it, or want to be removed, write to [email protected]. We aim to reply within 14 days, and always within one month. Factual errors are corrected with a dated note here. A sentence that is seriously disputed comes down while we check it.

Change log: (empty)