Livy Alex says she turned down a contract offer from Clavicular’s team after being told the deal would send most of the money away from her. In a livestream on April 15, 2026, Alex said someone from his management approached her about his OnlyFans agency and that the split would have been 80-20 in the manager’s favor.
“Somebody on Clav’s team offered me a contract for his OnlyFans agency,” Alex said. “I heard that the split is 80-20.” She said the pitch also came wrapped in a promise that she could make “300k plus on OnlyFans,” before adding, “What type of scam is that? Anyway, exposed.” She then said, “I’d rather literally kill myself, but that’s fine.”
The comment landed because the numbers are stark. OnlyFans typically keeps 20% of a creator’s revenue, so an 80-20 agency agreement would leave the creator with less than 16 cents per dollar after the platform’s cut. That is why the reaction online moved fast, with commenters calling the setup predatory, saying it would stack another 20% on top of the platform’s share and warning that 20% already is not sustainable for creators. One commenter said such agencies were “outright illegal” and should be investigated.
Clavicular, whose real name is Braden Peters, has already drawn attention for looksmaxxing content, erratic streams and controversial behavior. Peters is 20 years old and has faced multiple arrest warrants related to battery, as well as a hospitalization linked to a possible overdose. He has recently entered the world of OnlyFans management, and that is the backdrop for why Alex’s account spread quickly, the same way a live-streamed controversy can travel from one platform to another, much like the backlash that followed a Kick charity stream when viewers questioned the tactics rather than the headline figure.
The unresolved issue is not whether Alex believes she was offered the deal — she said she was — but what the offer says about how far newly aggressive creator agencies are willing to push. On the facts available now, the pitch was steep enough to make the creator’s share look tiny, and that is why the public reaction has settled on one answer: the arrangement was not presented as a normal business offer, but as a scheme designed to take far too much from the person doing the work.
