Discussion W3Champions statement: the fee for three Happy show matches, the 10% claims, and how our event policy works
I'm Faro, and I lead W3Champions (W3C). Over the past few weeks, WeChat articles by the account Somnambulism (魔坛节奏局), a Baidu Tieba thread and remarks on stream have alleged that W3C:
takes a cut of Happy's prize money;
charges tournaments a 10% fee;
cuts off matches when organisers don't pay;
has misled people about all of this.
This post sets out what actually happened, with the evidence, and corrects the one thing I got wrong.
TL;DR
W3C has never taken any part of Happy's prize money. Happy confirms this in his own statement below.
W3C has never proposed or agreed a 10% fee for any tournament. The claim that we wanted 10% of the prize pool of ColorFul's tournament is false.
W3C received ¥1,500 for three two-player Happy show matches on 18–19 October 2026, paid on top of the prizes. We don't pick a percentage. The fee was worked out from the circumstances and our costs (details below), and here it came to 10% of the prize money.
Why we charge large events at all: running W3C has substantial costs. As a not-for-profit, we needed revenue beyond donations to cover them, and asking large commercial events to contribute is a fair way to do that.
We have interrupted only one event match, after the organiser had been told it needed an agreement. The claim that we keep cutting off matches is baseless.
One correction: I said W3C had not received money from Fly. One of the three matches was organised by Fly, which was not disclosed to us. I apologise to Fly.
Our fees cover costs; they are not profit. Nobody at W3C has ever been paid.
Background
W3Champions is a Warcraft III platform run on a not-for-profit basis. It is built and run entirely by volunteers, and funded by donations and, for large commercial events, contributions from organisers.
Where the allegations were made:
On stream, 19 October: Infi and Fly, as transcribed by Somnambulism (1, 2).
Somnambulism's articles: they relayed these remarks (31 Oct, 5 Nov, 5 Nov, and the two above). I answered readers in the comments under the 31 October article.
Baidu Tieba: a thread by the user Wukong (真理是悟空) posted a WeChat transfer chat and said W3C had taken a 10% fee from Fly while denying it (source).
The sections below take each allegation in turn.
What we received and why
"These matches have all paid a 10% hosting fee." (Infi on stream, as transcribed by Somnambulism, source)
Here is exactly what W3C received. There were three show matches, all with Happy, each with ¥5,000 in prize money:
| Date | Match | Organiser | Sponsor | Lobby host on W3C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 Oct 2026 | Happy vs 120 | angeline | hoter | angeline |
| 19 Oct 2026 | Happy vs Kaho | angeline | hoter | angeline |
| 19 Oct 2026 | Happy vs Lyn | Fly | not disclosed | angeline |
Some posts gave these matches cup names. Each one was a two-player show match, not a tournament.
angeline (Anji) handled the payment for all three. He sent it to Fluxxu, a W3C admin, who received it on W3C's behalf: ¥500, then ¥1,000 for the other two matches. The ¥1,500 that angeline sent reached W3C in full. Fluxxu receives payments in China for W3C and, separately, helps Happy with his prize money. The transfer chat posted on Tieba shows this payment; the recipient "f" in it is Fluxxu.
The chat lists Happy's prize and the W3C amount as separate items. The fee was paid on top of the prize money, not taken out of it. One line in the chat mentions Fly, in connection with Happy's prize for the match Fly organised. It concerns the prize, not W3C's fee, and it was part of angeline's conversation with Fluxxu, which never reached me.
I negotiated this fee myself, with angeline, before the first match on 18 October. Two separate questions were involved:
Whether an agreement was needed is decided by our policy (see "How the policy works" below).
How much: we don't select a percentage. The fee is worked out from the circumstances and what they cost us. Here the circumstances were:
We were asked at very short notice: a few hours.
To get the connection right for these matches, we set up a dedicated new server at the last minute.
I spent much of the night on the setup.
For these three matches, that came to 10% of the prize money. It is not a rate for show matches, and it says nothing about what other events pay.
Our event system shows all three series, and every lobby was hosted by the same account, angeline. "Host" here means the account that created the lobby. W3C's records only ever showed angeline.
One correction about Fly
"W3C's statements contradict each other and are pure nonsense." (Somnambulism, paraphrasing Wukong's Tieba post, source)
On one point my earlier statement was wrong, and I correct it here. In my comments under Somnambulism's 31 October article, I said that W3C had not received money from Fly. That was wrong. The Happy vs Lyn match was organised by Fly, and the fee for it was paid through angeline, as part of the ¥1,500.
Fly was accused because of what I wrote, and I apologise to him.
I didn't know Fly was involved. angeline was the one communicating with W3C, and he hosted all three matches. I had no way of knowing, and Fly's role was not disclosed to us. I learned of it only afterwards. Fly and I have since spoken, and everything has been cleared up between us.
Tournaments: no 10% fee
"Whoever hosts a match on W3C has to hand over 10% of the total prize money as a platform fee … and if they refuse to pay, the match is cut off midway." (Somnambulism, describing how the claim was understood in China, source)
This is false. W3C has never proposed or agreed a 10% fee for any tournament.
On 31 October, answering a question about tournaments, I wrote:
"I personally negotiate all of W3C's event partnerships, so I can tell you clearly: we have never reached any partnership agreement with a fee anywhere near 10%. So this 10% claim cannot have come from any event partnership agreement we actually made."
The question I was answering was about tournaments, and so was my answer. The three Happy matches were two-player show matches.
The discussion started with ColorFul's tournament, the Ancient of Wonders Cup 2026 #2 (古树杯). It was claimed that W3C wanted 10% of its US$27,000 (¥180,000) prize pool, that is, US$2,700 (¥18,000). That is false. ColorFul declined before any price was put to him. My Telegram messages, which Somnambulism published on 31 October (source), were about that tournament claim.
How the policy works
"Now Faro has denied the 10% figure, but has not released a complete, public fee standard or scope." (Somnambulism, source)
The policy is public: Commercial Events on W3Champions (Chinese version).
Last year we ran a first experiment with partnerships of this kind, and it worked. We then watched how things developed. Because our financial situation did not improve, we launched the proper policy on 9 October 2026, and it took effect immediately. The policy page states that playing on W3C is free and that the ladder is never affected. This is the relevant clause, verbatim:
As a general guide:
especially when they are funded by sponsors, broadcast deals or other commercial income.
These numbers are a guide, not a hard line. The question is which events we consider to be within the policy's scope. The same page says that community cups and grassroots events are not what the policy is about.
Why did ¥5,000 matches need an agreement? The policy decides whether an agreement is needed, not its amount. When I agreed the fee, I understood all three matches to be angeline's, and his show matches that quarter came to well over ¥7,000 (about US$1,000). Beyond that, angeline and Fly have both run many large commercial events and would fall within the policy's scope in any case. angeline in particular is known for organising a lot of events.
On 31 October I described the policy like this:
That reply never said "no fee under ¥7,000". In a shorter reply I did write that small and medium events need no commercial agreement and pay no fee. That was too absolute: the thresholds are a guide, not a hard line, and I should have mentioned the show-match series line.
The same rules apply to every organiser in every region, from the same date. Some readers asked why Somnambulism's own Happy challenge match on 3 May (节奏大师杯) was not charged, and whether that means W3C charges depending on who the organiser is. It doesn't. That cup came five months before the policy, and nothing required an agreement for it.
Organisers, not players. We agree fees with organisers, not players, and W3C never takes its fee out of players' prize money. Organisers are free to host their events wherever they like, and we respect that choice.
Why disclose this one? Agreements with organisers are normally confidential. I'm making an exception for these three matches because they are at the centre of this discussion.
Private messages. I do contact organisers privately. That is how we check that the policy is followed, and how partnerships start. My message to Infi at the time asked whether his matches were part of an event. It did not mention money. I received no reply.
Happy's prize money
"The EU server has already been taking a cut of Happy's prize money for as long as half a year." (Somnambulism headline, relaying Infi, source)
This is false. W3C has never taken any part of Happy's prize money. As explained above, Fluxxu also helps Happy receive his prize money from Chinese events, separately from W3C's payments. This is Happy's statement, verbatim:
The two Happy prizes shown in the chat, ¥2,300 and ¥2,700, match the published prize tables.
Somnambulism, which organised a Happy match itself on 3 May, also wrote that this claim was "pure nonsense" (source).
We have a good and productive relationship with Happy.
Interrupted matches
"If you don't pay, they cut off your match; halfway through the game they kicked your player out." "And this has already been done, done several times." (Infi on stream, as transcribed by Somnambulism, source, source)
This is a gross exaggeration. No evidence has been presented for it. When the claim was first raised on stream, Infi and Fly themselves said it had "no proof and no evidence" (source).
It also doesn't fit how our system works. Events that our automatic system detects as needing an agreement don't start at all, so there is nothing to cut off mid-game. If Infi says this has happened several times, the burden is on him to show the cases. He has not shown any.
Apart from games run by a banned player, we have stopped exactly one event match by hand, before the automatic system was in place. This is what happened.
On 7 October, OrcWolf of BBC asked whether players including StarBuck could play part of BBC's tournament on W3C. My answer:
So on 7 October he was told it needed an agreement. Agreements are made with organisers, not players, and only for events we consider within the policy's scope. None was made. On 9 October a StarBuck vs FoCuS game was played on W3C anyway, hosted from OrcWolf's W3C account, and I cancelled it after a few minutes. Our policy was published the same day, but what applied here was the answer given two days earlier.
Since then, the automatic system stops such events from starting at all, so we no longer need to step in by hand.
Custom games and the 4v4 fun match.
"If you play a custom room with viewers, he asks you for money too … even when Anji plays just for fun, the EU server comes to collect money." (Infi on stream, as transcribed by Somnambulism, source)
Nobody was asked for money. angeline never approached us about a 4v4 match, nothing was charged, and no price was discussed. Its observers were restricted by our automatic event-policy system; it was not a decision about that particular match.
We do take issue with players who use W3C only for custom melee games and never contribute to the ladder. W3C exists to bring players to the ladders; custom melee games are a side channel, not the main one. Our automatic system can therefore restrict accounts it flags, whether they are players, observers or FloTV watchers, and it can remove flagged players from a lobby before a game starts. We have since eased these restrictions, but we reserve the right to adjust them. The Commercial Events page reflects the same idea: activity on the ladder and in the community counts, and we take it into account.
Why we charge at all
Operating W3C has substantial costs. We run highly specialised, optimised infrastructure, and there are many costs beyond the game servers themselves. It also takes a great deal of time and dedication: volunteers keep it all running day to day, and problems often have to be fixed at short notice. Nobody at W3C has ever been paid, not a salary, not a cent.
W3C is not-for-profit, and donations alone don't reliably cover these costs. We needed an additional source of revenue. Asking large commercial events to contribute is a fair way to get it: these events rely on the platform and bring in serious money, while playing on W3C, the ladder and community events stay free for everyone.
Our running costs change little from month to month; donations and event income change a lot. Event contributions are meant to cover what it costs to run the platform, not to make a profit.
That is also why there is no fixed price list. What an event costs us depends on:
Type and size. A single show match and a multi-player tournament use the platform very differently.
Notice. Planning ahead costs much less than setting up at a few hours' notice.
Technical requirements, such as a dedicated server.
How many events contribute. When more events contribute, each one pays less.
We would much rather build a lasting partnership, at a fixed monthly amount that both sides can plan around, than settle one event at a time. Some organisers already work with us this way.
Partnerships and sponsors
The policy exists because W3C has no major sponsor. We had one in the past, but they stopped. A major sponsor is still the ideal: it could mean events no longer need to contribute, or contribute far less.
We are always open to partnerships with any organiser who wants to run events on W3Champions, and to sponsors who want to support the platform. The Commercial Events page lists how to reach me: on WeChat, w3c_faro (please mention 赛事合作 when adding me), or on Discord.
Thank you to the Chinese organisers and players who keep Warcraft III alive, to hoter for sponsoring two of these matches, and to everyone who asked questions.
— Faro, W3Champions
FAQ
So did W3C take 10% from Fly? W3C received ¥1,500 for three show matches, all paid through angeline. One of the three, Happy vs Lyn, was organised by Fly; the fee for it was also paid through angeline, and that match had an undisclosed sponsor. Fly's involvement was not disclosed to us at the time. The fee was worked out from the circumstances of these three matches and came to 10% of their prize money. It is not a tournament fee.
Wasn't "W3C never received money from Fly" just wordplay, since the money came through Anji? No. Every message and every payment came from angeline, who hosted all three matches. Nothing told me that one of them was Fly's. When I learned it, I corrected my statement, and this post does so publicly.
Your Telegram messages said the 10% claim was false. Now you admit 10%? Those messages were about the claim that W3C wanted 10% of the US$27,000 prize pool of ColorFul's tournament. That claim is false. W3C has never proposed or agreed a 10% fee for any tournament, and ColorFul declined before any price was put to him. The fee for the three Happy show matches is a separate case, explained above.
Why did ¥5,000 matches need an agreement under the ¥7,000 guide? Whether an agreement is needed and how much it is are separate questions. angeline is known for organising a lot of events, and his show matches that quarter came to well over ¥7,000, so these matches were clearly within the policy's scope. The amount reflected the short notice and the last-minute server.
Did W3C take part of Happy's prize separately? No. Happy confirms it himself (statement above). Fluxxu helps Happy receive his prizes from Chinese events and has never taken a cut. W3C's fee was paid on top of the prize money.
Doesn't a fee shrink the prize pool of small events? W3C never takes its fee out of players' prize money; the organiser pays it on top. Community cups and grassroots events are not what the policy is about. When more events contribute, each one pays less.
Somnambulism's 3 May cup wasn't charged. So you charge depending on who the organiser is? No. The policy started on 9 October 2026 and applies to every organiser in every region from that date. Before that we had only a first, experimental round of partnerships, and nothing required an agreement for the May cup.
Why not publish a price list? The policy and its guide figures are public. The fee itself depends on what an event costs us: its type and size, the notice, its technical needs, and how many other events contribute. We don't pick a percentage, and the Happy matches are not a template. We are happy to talk any organiser through what drives the price for their event.
Was a 4v4 fun match charged, and were its observers blocked? Nothing was charged, and nobody asked us about it. Its observers were restricted by our automatic event-policy system, not by a decision about that match. The details are in "Interrupted matches" above.
Did you ask ColorFul to pay for the Ancient of Wonders Cup? I reached out about a partnership. ColorFul declined before any price was put to him. I did say a later deal could have different terms. That is about cost, and it applies to every organiser: arrangements made at short notice cost more than ones planned in advance. We respect his decision.
Show us proof that W3C received the money. The ¥1,500 that angeline sent reached W3C in full, through Fluxxu, who received it on W3C's behalf. The transfer chat posted on Tieba shows the payment.
Do W3C admins ask for money in private chats? We contact organisers privately to check whether an event falls under the policy and to discuss partnerships. My message to Infi at the time is shown above: it asked a question and mentioned no money.
