What actually holds up at three hundred verifications a month?

Scaling from about 40 verifications a month to around 300 and the manual flow I've been using falls apart somewhere around 80.

Where it breaks: I'm copying codes by hand out of a web panel, one at a time, and at 300 that's most of a working week. So I need something with an API, or at least something a script can poll. Second problem is failure rate — at 40 a month a code that doesn't arrive is an annoyance, at 300 a 20% miss rate is sixty wasted slots and sixty half-created accounts to clean up.

1. Needs an API or a pollable inbox. 2) Needs the failure to be fast — a slot that never delivers and holds my money for twenty minutes is worse than an instant no.

Who's running at this rate and what's the setup?

300 a month is 10 a day. that's not volume, that's an afternoon

It's ten a day plus the proxy, the profile, the warm-up schedule and the cleanup on the ones that fail. The code is the part I want to stop touching precisely because it's the least interesting.

Every panel have api, this is not the problem. The problem is the api is fine and the numbers are recycled.

What i do at similar volume — request slot, if no code in 90 second, cancel and request again. Not wait the full twenty minute, is always dead. Three try then i stop and put that account in a queue for tomorrow, because if three number in a row fail on same platform is usually the platform blocking that whole range, not bad luck.

This one rule take my failure from maybe 25% to under 10%. Anyway is more about how you retry than which panel you use.

What happens to the account after it's verified matters more than how it got verified. You're optimising the cheapest step in the pipeline.

I know. It's the cheapest step and it's currently eating the most hours, which is exactly why it's the one I'm fixing.

For the half made account — do not throw them away my friend, this is money.

Actually i keep a list of every account that stop at the code step, with the email and the profile, and every two week i try again with a different number range. Maybe 40% of them finish on the second attempt, and one of them is one month old already at that point which is actually better for the account than a fresh one.

The ones that fail three time i use for something else, they are still an email and a profile.

A graveyard with a filing system. Genuinely the best idea in the thread.

stealing this

Why not just buy them pre-made at that point? 300 a month of doing this yourself sounds brutal

Because I've bought them and the survival curve is completely different. Rough numbers from my own records, accounts alive at 60 days: mine about 70%, bought about 25%, and the bought ones die in clusters which suggests they were made in clusters.

There's also the small matter that when you buy 300 accounts you're the second person to have held those credentials. That has never once been a problem for me and I still don't love it.

At 300 a month the maths is close enough that I understand why people buy. It's the clustering that keeps me making my own — losing 30% steadily is survivable, losing 40 accounts on one Tuesday because they shared something isn't.

how do you check whats still alive at 60 days

Script logs in on a schedule and records whether the session survives. Nothing clever, it's a spreadsheet with a cron job in front of it.

Careful, the check itself can kill the account if it come from wrong place. Use same proxy as always for the check.

Five weeks in, for the record.

Went with an API panel plus vlad's 90-second cancel rule, which was the single biggest change — failure rate down from 22% to about 8% and the money isn't sitting in dead slots. Half-made accounts go into a retry queue on a fortnightly cycle, per paulofrz, and I'm recovering roughly a third of them.

Time on the code step is down from something like nine hours a month to under two. The 300 target turned out to be the easy part; what's actually limiting me now is warm-up scheduling, which is a different thread.

nullroute was right that I was optimising the cheap step. It was still worth doing.