Hahahahahahaha you dumb fucking pig, so much for over 200 subscribers, I can already see how untrue this is. Why? Because monthly is worth far more than yearly, since 7.99*12 > 7.99*10, duh. A yearly grift is only equivalent to 10 monthly ones. This means the tipping point of "more yearly than monthly" can be fairly accurately calculated and this claim itself a huge contradiction. Think about it, yearly is worth less, if one has more yearly subscribers, this means they should have less monthly ones at some point, and it's not fucking 200 since 99*7.99+101*79.99 = 8870 >> 7679.09 = 5375.36/0.7. That's 1 more yearly than monthly, what about 2 more, 10 more? He says most, right? You can see how increasing yearly subscribers lead to an even bigger increase in monthly ones.
At 200, or more, it's literally impossible to have more yearly subscribers than monthly ones!
Does this pig even math?
Here's what I mean.
View attachment 2271752
Basically, at 175 subscribers, he has 1 more yearly than monthly. That's not "most" now is it?
View attachment 2271756
The highlighted cells calculate the difference between what he made and expected value. It's supposed to be 0. I'm guessing it's 30% on top of Google/Apple's 30%, or an additional 3% credit card service fee. Either way, we can find the spot that contains the even point.
Why is his "over 200" claims false? Because if he has more 175 subscribers, he no longer has more yearly subscribers than monthly subscribers. He basically fucked himself with the claim since 10 times a number greater than 1 will always be smaller than 12x. With a fixed value as we know it, more monthly = less yearly. Either way, it's not 200, it's LESS.
Keep coping piggie, you're not going to pwn any of us ayelawgz with your retarded claims and finances.
Basically,
@Sam Losco is right, I now have the numbers to completely back up the logic.
His next paycheque is gonna be fucking tiny.
"I have more yearly subscribers than monthly" is just a nicer way to say "I have less than 175 subscribers"!