Post your actual burn rate. How many accounts die before one lives

Every thread on this board contains someone saying "you have to expect to burn accounts" and nobody ever says how many. I'd like the number.

Format, so it's comparable: accounts started in a period, how many reached 30 days alive, how many reached 90, and roughly what each one cost you all in — the account itself, the proxy, the card, the profile setup, your time at whatever you value it.

Mine, last twelve months, one platform, bought aged accounts from two sellers:

	n
Started	41
Alive at 30 days	17
Alive at 90 days	6
Still alive today	3

All-in cost per account start, roughly 95 including my time. So 41 starts is about 3,900 to end up with three that are still running.

That's a 7% ninety-day survival rate and I have no idea whether that's good, terrible, or normal, because nobody posts this.

7% is fine. the people telling you it's bad are the ones selling accounts

Mine, same format, twelve months, two platforms, self-registered rather than bought.

	Platform A	Platform B
Started	22	14
Alive at 30	13	5
Alive at 90	8	2
Alive today	6	1

All-in about 60 per start on A and about 110 on B, because B needs a verified entity and that's the expensive part.

Caveat that matters for comparison: I self-register. That is slower, it fails more often at the registration stage — which I haven't counted above, and probably should have — and the ones that survive registration seem to last considerably longer than the bought ones I used to run.

1. My 90-day survival is 36% on A against your 15%. 2) But my cost per attempt is lower and my throughput is much lower, so we're not really running the same business. 3) If I needed 40 accounts in a month I could not do it this way at all.

The thing I'd want to know from anyone else posting: bought or self-registered. Everything else is downstream of that.

Roughly 30 start this year, maybe 4 alive now. So similar to you. I never count the cost properly and now i am afraid to.

36% at 90 days is unreal. i've never been near that

mine is way worse than both of you. i started like 60 this year and i have 2 running

but honestly the 2 running are paying for all 60 and then some so i've never thought of it as a problem?? is that wrong

It isn't wrong, and it's actually the right way to look at it as long as you know the numbers, which most people don't.

The burn rate on its own is meaningless. What matters is expected value per start: what a surviving account earns over its life, times the survival probability, minus the cost per start. If your two survivors clear 60,000 between them and your 60 starts cost 4,000, your unit economics are excellent and a 3% survival rate is irrelevant.

Where it goes wrong is when people optimise the survival rate for its own sake. I've watched someone spend three months on elaborate warm-up procedures that lifted survival from 15% to 25% while cutting throughput by two thirds. Better rate, less money.

5 started, 5 dead. thats my whole data

Marta_K is right that bought and self register is the real division. In Brazil self register is much easier than what people here describe, actually, because the documents that platform want are not so hard to get. I never buy an account, is cheaper for me to make one.

My number is 19 start, 9 alive at 90 days. Everybody tell me this is impossible when i say it, so i stop saying it.

That's the most interesting number in the thread and you buried it because people were rude. What geo are the accounts targeting, and is it the same as where they're registered?

nine of nineteen and everyone told him he was lying. classic board

Four hundred accounts in this thread and twelve of them are alive. We are farmers with a very bad harvest.