Skip to main content

fix the multiplier

Feature Request

I recently got a backlink from a company where i applied the mutlitplier. I forget the exact number or range i used it may have ben betwen 150-200%. I was expecting to ahve 1.5×2 times the tokens charged for the backink. As would any one who reads that

Instead i was charged over 12000 credits for a single backlink from a DR 14 company. Thats outrageous in the greater scheme of things as thats nearly 12 backlinks i need to give from a DR 40 site to make up for that!!!

Thats not fair and reallly makes me not want to use the multiplier. Any credit back of some of my tokens would be greatly appreciated….ive allready given out 10+ BLs on 3 of my 5 sites i have on the platform.

Posted by Alex Tarlescu ·
Status: Completed4 comments

Log in to comment and vote

Comments4

  • Blake changed status to Completed
    Team•

    May 19

    Pinned

    Thanks for flagging this.

    You were right: the multiplier was being applied incorrectly in this case. A 150-200% multiplier should mean 1.5x-2x the base credit cost, not 150x-200x.

    We fixed the issue so it cannot happen again, corrected the affected request logic, and will refund the excess credits charged on this backlink. We are also adjusting the receiving workspace so the incorrectly released excess credits are removed.

    Sorry for the frustration here. The multiplier should make bidding clearer and more predictable, not create an unfair charge.

    • Alex Tarlescu

      •

      May 19

      Thx….though instead of gettting 10-11k now my account was less 11k lol.

      • Blake

        Team•

        May 20

        I checked the ledger carefully.

        You were correctly refunded 11,979 credits for the DR14 backlink where the multiplier overcharged you.

        However, your workspace was also the publisher on two other affected exchanges where the same multiplier bug overpaid your account by 15,774 and 7,481 credits. Those excess credits were removed at the same time.

        So the net change looks negative, but it is because the correction fixed both sides of the bug: the credits you were overcharged, and the credits your workspace had previously received in excess.

        Let me know if you believe I have made any mistake?

  • Alex Tarlescu

    •

    May 20

    ah makes sense. Thanks.