Playbook
Building a 5 tier sub-partner network that does not collapse
A sub-partner network is arithmetic, not a bonus pool. Once you can state the arithmetic in one sentence, the rest of the design follows from it.
The arithmetic, in one sentence
You sign a partner beneath you at a rate lower than your own, and you keep the difference on everything they produce. That is the entire mechanism. There is no separate pool, no bonus, and no second budget it is paid out of. The money is the gap between two rates applied to the same revenue.
Stating it this way matters commercially, not just semantically. A partner who understands that your income from them is a spread between two published rates can verify it. A partner who has been told there is a bonus structure has no way to check anything, and eventually asks why.
- How the gap works
- A sub-partner signs at a lower rate than yours, and you keep the difference on everything they produce.
- How deep the tree goes
- 5 tiers
- What both rates apply to
- what Introbroker receives on the account
Designing the rate card
Three constraints, and every network that falls apart has broken one of them.
Step 1 of 3. Every sub-partner rate sits strictly below the parent's
Not equal to. A network where two levels are on the same rate produces a zero gap and a parent with no reason to support anyone. The rule is enforced in the commission engine rather than in a policy document, so it cannot be signed around in a negotiation.
Step 2 of 3. Leave yourself room at the top before you start
If you sign your first sub-partner close to your own rate, you have spent the space you need for the second and third levels. Design the whole card before signing anyone, and work down from your own rate rather than up from theirs.
Step 3 of 3. Make the gap correspond to something you actually do
Onboarding, creative, dispute handling, first-line support for their traders. A gap that corresponds to work is defensible when a growing sub-partner asks for a better rate. A gap that corresponds to nothing is a renegotiation waiting to happen.
Why a ladder denominated in volume fails
It is tempting to move partners up a ladder on traded volume, because volume is the number everyone already looks at. It fails for two reasons, and both of them cost the network owner money.
First, a lot is not a consistent unit across instruments. A partner producing volume in a major currency pair and a partner producing the same volume in gold generate very different revenue, and on a volume ladder they climb at the same speed. Second, it is a gaming vector: the fastest way up a volume ladder is to push traffic into whichever instrument gives the largest notional for the smallest cost, which is precisely the volume that earns the network least.
A ladder denominated in revenue received has neither problem, and it has a third advantage worth having: revenue received is an actual figure from a ledger rather than a derivation, so it cannot be wrong because an assumption was wrong.
The conflict rules to agree before you need them
- Who owns a trader who clicks two links in your network. First click or last click, decided in advance and applied consistently.
- What happens when a sub-partner recruits somebody the parent was already talking to. Write the answer down before it happens, not during the argument.
- Whether a sub-partner may run paid traffic on your brand terms. This one ends more partnerships than rate disputes do.
- What happens to a sub-partner's traders if the sub-partner leaves. The trader has an account and a relationship with the broker, so the answer is not obvious and the partner will ask.
- Who handles a trader complaint, and who is allowed to speak to the broker about it.
The three things that actually break a network
Statements nobody can check
A sub-partner who cannot see which trades produced their payment assumes the worst eventually, usually at the point where their volume is worth keeping. Trade-level statements remove the entire category of argument, which is why they are worth the engineering.
Rate compression at the top
Signing early partners at a rate close to your own leaves nothing for the levels beneath. The network stops growing because there is no economics in recruiting, and the fix is a renegotiation with everyone at once.
A gap that buys nothing
A parent who does no onboarding, no support and no dispute handling is a toll booth. The sub-partner works it out and goes direct at the first opportunity, and the broker usually lets them.
Questions
How many levels of sub-partner are supported?
Five. Each level is signed at a rate below the level above it, and each parent keeps the difference between their rate and their sub-partner's on everything that sub-partner produces.
Is this a multi-level marketing structure?
No. Nobody is paid for recruiting anyone. Every payment in the tree is a share of revenue produced by real trading on real accounts, and a partner who recruits ten sub-partners who produce nothing is paid nothing. The gap only exists where there is revenue underneath it.
Does my sub-partner see my rate?
No. Each partner sees their own rate, their own traders and their own statements. A parent sees the tree beneath them and the gap they keep on each branch.
What stops a sub-partner going direct?
Commercially, the work the parent does that the sub-partner would otherwise have to do themselves. Structurally, nothing should: a network that only holds together because the exit is blocked is one that will fail as soon as it is not. Design the gap so it buys something.
Where this comes from
Sources
Primary sources only: the regulator, the standards body, the platform vendor, the legislation, or our own agreements. Not another affiliate's summary of one.
- Our own documentIntrobroker
Introbroker partner agreementnot published
The commercial terms on this page in their contractual form: the rate, the denominator, the clawback position and the payout schedule. Sent before you sign.