OnlyFans Exposé: The Muti Billion-Dollar Adult Empire Poised for an Exit
- TWR. Editorial
- May 25
- 32 min read
by TWR. Editorial Team | Sunday, May 25, 2025 – An investigative report on the economics, ethics, and cultural impact of OnlyFans at the edge of a rumored $8 billion sale.
Financial Performance: Skyrocketing Profits and a Multibillion Sale
OnlyFans has seen explosive financial growth since 2020, evolving from a niche startup into a cash-printing juggernaut. The platform’s gross transaction volume surged from roughly $4.8 billion in 2021 to $6.6 billion in 2023. OnlyFans keeps a 20% cut of all fan spending (with creators receiving 80%), which drove its net revenue from $932 million in 2021 to about $1.31 billion in 2023. Profits have ballooned accordingly – pre-tax profit hit $658 million in 2023, a 25% jump from $525 million in 2022. To put this in perspective, OnlyFans’ profit margins exceed 50%, an almost unheard-of level of profitability for a social media platform. In 2022 the company generated more than $20 million in revenue per employee, given its lean staff of just 53 people. The platform’s owner, Leonid Radvinsky, has richly benefited: he has paid himself hundreds of millions in dividends – over $470 million in 2023 alone – extracting a total of ~$1 billion from the company over three years.
Given these stunning economics, it’s no surprise that OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International, is reportedly eyeing a massive exit valuation around $8 billion. In May 2025, Reuters and other outlets revealed that Radvinsky has been in advanced talks with investor groups – led by the Los Angeles-based firm Forest Road – to sell OnlyFans for roughly $8 billion. Such a price tag would make it one of the largest deals ever in the creator economy space. It far exceeds traditional adult-industry multiples – where comparable platforms trade at just 3–5× EBITDA – effectively valuing OnlyFans like a high-growth tech unicorn rather than a porn site. The lofty valuation is fueled by OnlyFans’ extraordinary revenue trajectory (from ~$375 million in 2020 to $6.6 billion in 2023, counting total fan spend) and consistent profitability. However, it also raises a critical question: can a platform built on explicit content truly command a Silicon Valley price, or will the stigma and regulatory risks of porn undermine its sale? Even as OnlyFans posts record profits, its very success tests the limits of investor appetite – especially when mainstream creator platforms have stumbled (Patreon’s valuation fell from $4 billion to $1.4 billion in 2022, and Substack peaked at $650 million). For context, even Pornhub’s parent company reportedly sold for under $1 billion in 2023, illustrating how exceptional OnlyFans’ $6–8 billion valuation rumor truly is.
Notably, two-thirds of OnlyFans’ revenue comes from the United States, with the platform boasting some 300 million registered users worldwide by 2023. Fans not only pay monthly subscriptions but also spend heavily on pay-per-view messages, tips, and live streams – in fact, nearly 60% of OnlyFans earnings now come from one-off purchases and live content rather than recurring subs. This diversified income stream has helped OnlyFans grow 19–20% year-on-year recently despite saturating its core markets. The site has paid out an eye-popping $5.3 billion to creators in 2023 alone, enriching its top stars (and, of course, the house, which keeps that 20% cut). By late 2024, OnlyFans even explored going public via IPO before leaning into the current private sale talks. All signs indicate the company is trying to cash out at peak performance, mindful that regulatory clouds and market saturation could eventually slow its momentum. Whether or not the $8 billion sale goes through, OnlyFans stands as an unprecedented cash cow in the sex-tech arena, marrying the subscription model of a Patreon with the high-volume adult entertainment demand of a Pornhub.
Ownership & Corporate Structure: From Essex to a Ukrainian American Adult-Tech Mogul
OnlyFans is owned by Fenix International Ltd, a London-based company that operates the platform. Since 2018, Fenix International has been 100% owned by Leonid Radvinsky, a 41-year-old Ukrainian-American tech entrepreneur. Radvinsky acquired OnlyFans from its British founder, Tim Stokely, and the Stokely family, who had started the site in 2016 with a modest £10,000 investment. The Stokelys – Tim, his father Guy (an ex-banker), and at times his brother and mother – built the initial platform as a way for influencers to monetize content, but sold a majority stake to Radvinsky in 2018 to turbocharge its adult content ambitions. Today, Radvinsky is the sole shareholder of OnlyFans’ parent, reaping those massive dividend payouts as the site’s exclusive owner.
Who is Leonid Radvinsky? Despite presiding over a porn empire that has minted him a billionaire, Radvinsky himself keeps a low, almost enigmatic profile. He rarely gives interviews or makes public appearances. What is known is that he was born in Odesa, Ukraine, before emigrating to the U.S. as a child and settling near Chicago. In the early 2000s, a teenage Radvinsky cut his teeth in the seedy corners of the internet: trading adult domain names and running sites that linked to stolen celebrity sex tapes. At age 21, he founded MyFreeCams, a live-streaming adult webcam site that became one of the world’s top camming platforms. MyFreeCams was highly profitable – reportedly handling hundreds of millions in payments annually – and it established Radvinsky as a savvy (if shadowy) player in online porn. Notably, Radvinsky has a history of pushing ethical boundaries in pursuit of traffic and profit. A 2022 investigation revealed that MyFreeCams advertised on teen chat rooms (on a site called ChatAvenue) throughout the 2000s, with banner ads for “the #1 adult webcam community” appearing in forums labeled for 13–19 year-olds. This questionable practice blurred legal lines and exposed minors to adult content, showcasing the kind of “growth hacking” that built Radvinsky’s fortune. Financial records have also raised eyebrows: leaked bank reports from MyFreeCams mentioned “unusual wire activity” and offshore payments consistent with possible money laundering techniques (fund transfers through a Curaçao entity, etc.). Radvinsky has never been charged in relation to those reports, but such findings contribute to a dubious reputation that contrasts sharply with the wholesome “tech philanthropist” image he projects on his personal website.
If MyFreeCams was Radvinsky’s first act, OnlyFans is his blockbuster sequel. He bought the platform just as the subscription-based “creator economy” boom was taking off, and crucially, as mainstream social networks were tightening bans on explicit content. By allowing adult creators to monetize directly, OnlyFans filled a lucrative void – one Radvinsky was well positioned to exploit. Under his ownership, the company has grown astronomically but also courted controversy. Radvinsky himself became embroiled in a major legal scandal in 2022: OnlyFans was accused of conspiring to blacklist rival adult sites and performers on social media. In a U.S. lawsuit, rival site FanCentro alleges that OnlyFans (under Radvinsky’s direction) bribed employees at Meta (Facebook/Instagram) to flag competitors’ content as “terrorism” on a shared database, causing those performers’ Instagram and Facebook posts to be auto-removed or shadow-banned. The scheme, allegedly active around 2018, would have drastically reduced traffic to other cam and clip sites while leaving OnlyFans promoters untouched, giving OnlyFans a huge competitive edge. Facebook (Meta) was subpoenaed in the case, and internal documents are being examined for any evidence of bribes or wrongdoing. OnlyFans “vehemently denies” the allegations and has called the lawsuit meritless. Still, the mere suggestion that the company might manipulate terrorist content filters to crush competition illustrates the ruthless tactics in its rise – and it shines a light on Radvinsky’s broader legacy of pushing legal and ethical boundaries.
Radvinsky's Controversial Business Practices and Financial Scrutiny
Leonid Radvinsky's ascent in the adult entertainment industry is marked by a history of controversial business practices. According to a Forensic News investigation, Radvinsky began his career in the late 1990s by registering numerous pornographic domain names, some of which implied access to underage content, though there is no evidence that illegal material was hosted. His ventures, including MyFreeCams, were flagged in multiple Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) by banks for "unusual wire activity" and offshore payments, suggesting potential money laundering techniques. Notably, MyFreeCams advertised on teen chat rooms, exposing minors to adult content and blurring legal boundaries. While Radvinsky has never been criminally charged, these findings contribute to a dubious reputation that contrasts sharply with the more sanitized image he projects publicly.
Aside from Radvinsky, OnlyFans’ corporate structure includes a handful of entities and executives. Fenix International Ltd is based in London, and there is also Fenix Internet LLC, a U.S. subsidiary that handles payments (as noted in the FanCentro suit). After Tim Stokely stepped down as CEO in late 2021, Radvinsky installed marketing executive Ami Gan as CEO, followed by chief strategy officer Keily Blair in 2023. However, it’s widely understood that Radvinsky, as owner, remains the ultimate decision-maker. His influence was evident during OnlyFans’ brief ban on porn in August 2021, a move that shocked creators and was quickly reversed. That incident stemmed from pressure by banks and payment processors uneasy with potential liability for sex trafficking or underage content. OnlyFans’ attempt to sanitize itself for investors lasted mere days amid public uproar, highlighting Radvinsky’s dilemma: the platform’s profitability is inseparable from adult content, yet that very factor complicates its banking and exit prospects. It’s a tension at the heart of OnlyFans’ ownership: a business built on sexual content trying to appear as legitimate as any Silicon Valley startup.
The Creator Economy: Earnings, Inequities, and Exploitation
OnlyFans likes to market itself as an empowering force for creators, enabling anyone to monetize content and connect with fans. And indeed, for a select few, it has been life-changingly lucrative. The platform now hosts over 4 million content creators worldwide, and its top stars reportedly earn millions of dollars a year. But behind those headline-grabbing success stories lies a starkly unequal creator economy – one rife with income disparity, hidden exploitation, and deceptive practices that call into question the “empowerment” narrative.
Huge income inequality. The vast majority of OnlyFans creators make little to nothing, while a tiny elite reaps most of the rewards. In 2023, the average creator earned only about $1,300 for the entire year – that’s roughly $108 per month. Put another way, half of all creators make less than $100 a month on the platform. Meanwhile, the top 1% of creators are believed to earn around $49,000 per year on average – nearly 40× more than the typical creator’s earnings. And the inequality grows even more extreme at the very top: the top 0.1% of OnlyFans creators (the ultra-famous accounts) earn roughly 15× more than the top 1% on average. That implies annual incomes in the high six figures (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the top 0.1%, with a handful of superstar creators reportedly pulling in over $1 million per year each. In fact, OnlyFans confirmed that in 2023 its creators collectively earned about $5.3 billion – but nearly all of that money flows to a sliver of creators at the top, with the bottom tiers earning virtually nothing. Most creators will never see a fraction of the wealth flaunted by the platform’s poster girls and guys.
The data suggests OnlyFans has a “winner-take-all” dynamic common to many online platforms: a few big stars thrive, while most others hustle for scraps. Internal figures for 2023 show about 4.1 million creators serving 305 million users, which averages out to roughly 75 subscribers per creator – but in reality, many creators have zero or only a handful of paying fans. One analysis found that a creator in the 71st percentile (top 29% of accounts) had just 2 active subscribers, highlighting how incredibly skewed the distribution is. The top 1% of creators alone likely earn well over one-third of all money on the platform, and the top 0.1% (just a few thousand individuals) probably take home the majority of all earnings. The typical newcomer or average user, by contrast, might spend more on costumes, photo shoots, and promotion than they ever get back in fan payments. This stark inequality has led some to call OnlyFans a “digital pyramid scheme,” where the visible success of a few lures millions of others into participating under false hopes of fortune.
Third-party management and agency exploitation. A booming cottage industry of OnlyFans management agencies has arisen, promising to help creators (especially young women) maximize their earnings – often at a steep cost. These agencies act as talent managers for OnlyFans creators, handling everything from content scheduling to subscriber messaging. However, investigations have uncovered deceptive and exploitative practices by some of the largest firms. Case in point: Unruly Agency, a prominent LA-based management firm that has handled many top OnlyFans models, was accused of catfishing fans and abusing creators in its pursuit of profits. Whistleblowers revealed that Unruly’s employees would impersonate the models in private chats, reading and replying to intimate messages from fans who believed they were talking to the actual creator. One former account manager described themselves as “basically a professional scammer,” paid to convincingly fake a model’s persona and encourage fans to spend more. Fans would confess fantasies or personal troubles to these hired chatters, having no idea their favorite creator never saw the messages. Legally, this ghostwriting practice exists in a gray area – OnlyFans’ terms don’t explicitly ban it, and agencies justify it as necessary to manage high message volume. But ethically it raises huge questions about authenticity and consent, effectively tricking (and milking) paying customers.
Agencies like Unruly have also been accused of mistreating the creators they represent. Multiple models say Unruly (and an affiliated firm, Behave Agency) posted their private nude content publicly without permission – sometimes even content the women never agreed to share at all. In some cases, agency staff allegedly leaked or distributed a creator’s explicit photos beyond paywalls to drive more subscriptions, violating the creator’s trust. A group of former Unruly employees filed a lawsuit in 2021 alleging wage theft, retaliatory firing, and directives to deceive fans by pretending to be the influencers in chats. The lawsuit and related reports portray a Wild West industry where young women sign contracts (often without legal review) handing agencies 20–50% of their earnings, only to be controlled, oversexualized, and even have their content weaponized against their wishes. For example, one creator told BuzzFeed News that when she hesitated to sign Unruly’s onerous contract, she was told the harsh terms “wouldn’t be enforced” – only to later find the agency did act on those clauses to lock her in. In short, the “creators’ representatives” can become exploiters themselves, blurring the line between empowerment and coercion in the OnlyFans ecosystem.
Bots, ‘ghostwriters,’ and AI erotica. Perhaps the worst-kept secret of OnlyFans is that many subscribers are not actually chatting with the real creator most of the time. From the early days of the platform, successful models (or their agencies) have hired teams of cheap overseas workers – euphemistically called “chatters” or ghostwriters – to manage their DMs and send flirty messages en masse. Often based in the Philippines or Eastern Europe, these chatters are given access to the creator’s fan messages and tasked with keeping paying customers engaged (and spending). They’ll diligently learn the creator’s “voice,” sometimes even using copy-pasted scripts, to convince fans that the model is typing those winking texts personally. The goal is to upsell: get the fan to buy a pricey custom video, renew a subscription, or tip big out of infatuation. It’s a scalable assembly-line approach to the girlfriend experience, and to date it has been perfectly legal (if misleading) on the platform. One UK lawyer noted this could be unfair trading if a subscriber is explicitly promised personal interaction, but OnlyFans has no specific rule forbidding ghostwriters. As a result, many top creators have entire “ghost teams” behind the scenes. One former agency worker recalled hearing fans spill their hearts – troubled marriages, kink confessions – believing a model cared, while it was just him on the other end of the screen.
Now, with the rise of AI, the industry is going a step further: replacing human chatters with AI chatbots that simulate the creator. By late 2024, services like FlirtFlow, ChatPersona, and Supercreator were being widely adopted by OnlyFans agencies. These tools use generative AI trained on the creator’s style (using past chat logs and social media content) to automate erotic conversations. For example, an AI might detect when a subscriber has been inactive and then automatically send a spicy “miss you” message as soon as they log back in – hooking them again without the creator lifting a finger. Some AI systems can even generate custom erotic images or deepfake voice notes on the fly, further fooling fans into thinking they’re interacting with a real person. The result: a subscriber has no reliable way of knowing whether the “girl” sexting them at 2am is the creator herself, a hired ghostwriter, or now literally a robot. Many creators embrace these AI assistants as a money-making boon – one agency head said the AI auto-engagement tool led to a single fan dropping a $1,000 tip, something the overworked model might never have had time to pursue manually. But the ethical implications are thorny. The very premise OnlyFans sells – intimacy and authenticity with a creator – is undermined by a web of bots and hired operators.
One agency head said the AI auto-engagement tool led to a single fan dropping a $1,000 tip.
For fans, it’s virtually paid fantasy, with an algorithm or a stranger whispering sweet nothings behind the avatar. And for creators, while these tools can boost income, they also commodify their identity in unsettling ways (e.g. an AI imitating you might continue working 24/7, sending explicit texts in your name that you’d never personally type). It’s a high-tech extension of the “emotional labor” outsourcing that has been happening for years.
The Instagram–TikTok funnel. A key driver of OnlyFans’ growth is its symbiotic (and sometimes fraught) relationship with mainstream social media. Creators heavily rely on apps like Instagram, TikTok, Twitter (X), and Snapchat to promote their OnlyFans accounts and find new customers. Typically, a creator will build a large following with free, PG-13 content on those platforms – often suggestive selfies, cosplay, fitness clips, etc. – and then drop a link or hint guiding fans to their OnlyFans for “uncensored” or exclusive material. This “link in bio” marketing strategy is so common that many Instagram bios feature the telling phrase “@onlyfans” or a Linktree link to circumvent Insta’s link ban. According to internal figures, OnlyFans had 239 million registered fans by the end of 2022, many of whom were converted from mainstream apps where the creators first gained popularity. Some of the platform’s biggest earners were already celebrities or influencers (e.g. Bella Thorne, Cardi B, Blac Chyna), leveraging their existing fame to cash in on thirsty followers.
However, using traditional social media to drive traffic to porn has invited tension and even alleged sabotage (as seen in the blacklist scandal). Instagram and TikTok officially ban explicit porn promotion, and has aggressively shut down accounts that directly link to OnlyFans. Creators often have to walk a fine line: posting just tame enough content on TikTok to go viral without getting banned, and then subtly directing viewers to “find my spicy site.” In 2021, a “concerned parent” campaign pressured Instagram to remove or shadowban many adult creators, leading to complaints of discrimination. There were even unverified rumors that OnlyFans might have had a hand in getting competitor links banned on those platforms (now part of the FanCentro lawsuit). What’s clear is that performers depend on big social media for discovery, making them vulnerable to rule changes or purges. In the alleged blacklist scheme, when dozens of performers who promoted rival sites suddenly had their Instagram posts flagged as terrorist content and accounts deleted, their traffic to sites other than OnlyFans plummeted – while those who linked only to OnlyFans saw no such setbacks. This suggests OnlyFans’ dominance is entwined with how social platforms treat adult creators. The company’s fortunes could shift dramatically if, say, Instagram decided tomorrow to ban all link-in-bio referrals to pay sites, or conversely, if a competitor struck a better integration deal with social media. For now, though, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok remain the de facto marketing departments for OnlyFans creators. Entire coaching businesses exist to teach models how to convert TikTok trends into OnlyFans subscribers, or how to run Reddit “NSFW” posts that funnel users to their page. This pervasive marketing has also arguably normalized online sex work for a generation – when you have wholesome TikTok dances directly leading teens to discover OnlyFans (if only out of curiosity), the cultural lines start to blur.
Psychological & Social Fallout: The Human Toll on Creators and Families
Behind the financial headlines and salacious content, OnlyFans can take a serious psychological toll on the people creating content – especially those who don’t “make it big.” Numerous creators have spoken out about the mental health challenges, regrets, and stigma associated with their time on the platform. While successful creators tout empowerment, others describe OnlyFans as a source of anxiety, exploitation, and lasting trauma.
Mental health strains. Studies and surveys indicate that a significant fraction of OnlyFans creators experience negative psychological outcomes. In one report, 34% of creators reported suffering mental or physical health consequences (e.g. anxiety, depression, shame, low self-esteem) from their content work. The work of producing sexual content and constantly engaging fans can lead to burnout and emotional exhaustion. Creators often feel pressure to push their boundaries further to retain subscribers – a slippery slope that can conflict with their personal comfort and values. “During my time as an OnlyFans creator, I was more depressed and anxious than I’ve ever been,” one young woman confessed in a candid essay about why she quit. She joined at 18 and was earning up to $20,000 a month – ostensibly a success – yet she says it left her traumatized and miserable despite the money.
"No matter what I posted, they wanted more explicit content.
“No matter what I posted, they wanted more explicit content,” she recalls, describing how subscribers constantly pushed her limits and would send degrading messages with impunity. To keep her high-paying fans happy, she felt compelled to do acts on camera she never initially intended to: “I ended up sending nude photos a few times even though I didn’t want to… They were offering so much money.” The persona she had to inhabit online – hyper-sexual, always available – began eroding her self-image. “It was obvious that they saw me as an object for their pleasure and not as a person,” she says. “It was awful being constantly sexualized to such a dehumanizing level.” Far from feeling empowered, she was drowning in depression and anxiety, and spent much of her earnings on therapy, vacations, and material comforts to “mask” her misery. Her story echoes many others where creators speak of losing themselves amidst the constant validation-seeking and sexual objectification online.
For those who don’t achieve financial success, the mental anguish can be compounded by financial stress and shame. Many creators start OnlyFans during hard times (job loss, pandemic lockdowns, etc.), lured by stories of easy money. If it doesn’t pan out, they may end up not only broke but also carrying the stigma of having done sex work publicly. And unlike traditional porn performers, OnlyFans creators often work in isolation – there’s no studio, no coworkers, no HR department. This isolation, combined with the relentless demands of subscribers (“Why haven’t you posted today?”) can breed loneliness and paranoia. Creators frequently deal with online harassment, leaked content, and fear of doxxing. The knowledge that intimate images might live on the internet forever can create lasting anxiety. As one therapist put it, the highs of fast money on OnlyFans are often followed by crashing lows of regret and emotional burnout. Indeed, some former creators describe a kind of post-OnlyFans trauma, where they struggle with intimacy and trust in offline relationships after having “sold” virtual intimacy for so long.
Family and social stigma. While society’s acceptance of sex work may be slowly increasing, many OnlyFans creators – especially women with children – face harsh judgment in their personal lives. A notable case is that of a Florida mom, Victoria Triece, whose involvement with OnlyFans led to her being banned from volunteering at her own kids’ elementary school in 2021. A “concerned” fellow parent anonymously sent the principal some of Triece’s online nude photos, and the school district swiftly barred her from campus duties. Triece, who had never had any issues in five years of volunteering, felt utterly humiliated and isolated by the ordeal. She sued the school for discrimination, arguing that what she does in her private online life has no bearing on her ability to help in her kids’ classroom.
Nonetheless, in 2025 a judge upheld the school’s right to exclude her, effectively ruling that a parent’s legal sex work made her unfit for even unpaid school involvement. “I don’t understand why other parents should be concerned about what I do off campus,” Triece said, devastated that her attempt to earn income via OnlyFans had backfired into a public scandal. Her case highlights the lingering “porn stigma”: communities may shun those associated with sex work, even if it’s consensual and legal.
"In 2025 a judge upheld the school’s right to exclude her, effectively ruling that a parent’s legal sex work made her unfit for even unpaid school involvement.
In another headline-grabbing incident, a mother of three in California found that her sons were expelled from their Catholic school after she became an OnlyFans model. Other parents discovered her content and pressured the school, which decided her presence was incompatible with their values. That mom was earning an astonishing $150,000 a month on OnlyFans, yet the social cost – her kids’ education and friendships – was dear. “It’s hard to explain to my children why they can’t go to school,” she lamented, noting the irony that her success on the platform (which she started to support her family) ended up hurting her family socially.
Even for younger, single creators, the long-term reputational risks are significant. Many worry: Will having an OnlyFans past ruin my future career prospects? There have been reports of college students losing internships or job offers after employers learned of their explicit content. Some creators proactively keep their face out of content to stay anonymous – yet leaks or slips can still expose them. The internet never forgets; a lapse in judgment at 21 can resurface in a background check at 31. This is an especially acute concern for the wave of Gen Z creators who flocked to OnlyFans during the pandemic, some without fully considering the future. “I regret doing OnlyFans and would never do it again,” one young woman wrote after quitting, describing how she now has to explain to future partners and employers that nude videos of her are online behind a paywall. Beyond their own struggles, some creators grapple with how their OnlyFans fame (or infamy) affects their children and relatives.
There are anecdotal stories of kids getting bullied at school because “your mom is on OnlyFans,” or of relationships with parents turning bitter upon discovery. In one extreme case, an OnlyFans creator in Argentina faced legal trouble after including her young son (fully clothed) in a suggestive photo shoot – a decision widely condemned as crossing a line of exploitation. While that’s an outlier, it underscores how the platform has thrust regular families into uncharted territory. As one psychologist noted, OnlyFans has collapsed the boundary between personal and public in a way that can be psychologically unsettling: your private sexuality becomes a product, and it’s hard to put that genie back in the bottle. The social fallout – from strained relationships to public shame – can persist long after a creator deletes their account.
Changing attitudes and intimate lives. On a broader cultural level, OnlyFans may be contributing to a generational shift in how youth view sex, intimacy, and labor. For some Gen Z and millennials, doing online sex work is increasingly seen as no more radical than driving for Uber – just another side hustle in the gig economy. A 19-year-old might weigh starting an OnlyFans page versus a part-time retail job, and choose the former as the more lucrative, independent option. This normalization can empower individuals to claim control of their sexuality and income; however, it also raises concerns about what happens when intimacy is commodified from an early age. Therapists have observed that some young people develop a detached or performative approach to sex after engaging in camming or content-selling – viewing sex as a transactional performance rather than an emotional connection.
There’s also a fear that the popularity of OnlyFans encourages a “compare and compete” mindset about one’s body and sexuality. As teens see influencers casually discussing “selling nudes” for cash, it might erode previous taboos and perhaps pressure some into trying it without fully grasping consequences. On the flip side, supporters argue OnlyFans has demystified sex work and reduced stigma among younger generations, who tend to be more accepting of it as legitimate work compared to older cohorts. Surveys suggest that a non-trivial percentage of young adults have considered starting an OnlyFans or know someone who has. This certainly marks a generational attitude shift: where earlier generations might have hidden such activities, today’s youth might flaunt an OnlyFans link as a badge of entrepreneurial daring.
The Dark Side of Engagement: Bot Farms, Fake Traffic, and Fan Deception
The thriving ecosystem around OnlyFans doesn’t just consist of creators and fans – it also includes shady intermediaries and tactics designed to game the system. In the relentless scramble for eyeballs and dollars, some participants resort to unscrupulous methods: bot farms to inflate likes and follower counts, fake engagement groups, stolen content, and algorithm hacking. While exact details are murky, insiders describe a subculture of “black hat” OnlyFans marketing where anything goes to give a creator’s account a boost in visibility.
One common tactic involves using bot accounts on social media to artificially promote OnlyFans profiles. For instance, a creator or agency might deploy hundreds of Twitter bots that all retweet and like the creator’s content, making them seem more popular and triggering algorithmic boosts. On Instagram, bots might be used to spam-follow thousands of users with a message like “subscribe to @[OnlyFans handle] for a surprise.” Some agencies have been caught running engagement pods – groups of fake or managed accounts on OnlyFans itself that subscribe, tip, and comment on a new model’s page to make it look like she’s an overnight sensation, in hopes of attracting real paying fans. This kind of astroturfing creates an illusion of popularity that can lure genuine users (nobody wants to be the first fan of an unknown creator, but if an account shows 500 likes on a post, new visitors are more likely to subscribe). It’s the same principle as buying fake followers, transplanted into the adult content world.
Additionally, there have been reports of content theft and recycling rings: networks of shady accounts that purchase a creator’s pay-per-view content, then resell or trade it in off-platform forums (or use it to catfish fans elsewhere). This not only undermines the creator’s earnings but can be weaponized to boost other accounts. In some cases, the stolen content is used to create deepfake OnlyFans accounts of celebrities or non-consenting individuals – effectively feeding the platform with AI-generated fake performers using real people’s likenesses, a disturbing trend that regulators are only starting to grapple with.
Creator management firms also engage in heavy paid advertising and cross-promotion schemes. It’s common for agencies to buy ads on porn tube sites (like Pornhub banners) directing viewers to their roster of OnlyFans models. They also orchestrate “shoutout for shoutout” deals, where a popular creator will promote another creator’s page to her own fans in exchange for a cut or reciprocal plug – forming cross-promotional networks that can feel almost multi-level-marketing in nature. The top agencies essentially run virtual modeling conglomerates, managing dozens of OnlyFans accounts and pooling resources to keep them all ranking high. For example, they might have one girl’s page offer a limited-time free trial subscription to another girl’s page, cycling traffic within their stable. These strategies blur the line between genuine fan interest and manufactured popularity, manipulating the algorithms that surface creators to users.
From the fan’s perspective, one of the biggest deceptions is the nature of interaction itself, as discussed earlier. Industry veterans estimate that a sizable percentage of OnlyFans subscribers have never truly spoken with the real model, despite spending hundreds on private messages. By 2023–24, between the ghostwriters and AI chatbots, it’s likely that well over half of “personal” conversations on the platform were not personal at all. Fans are effectively paying to sext with a team of outsourced texters or an algorithm trained to talk dirty. This revelation has begun to permeate the public – some disillusioned users have posted on forums things like, “I realized the girl I was tipping at 3am was sound asleep and it was some guy in a call center replying to me.” Such realizations can erode trust not just in a single creator but in the platform overall.
Fans are effectively paying to sext with a team of outsourced texters or an algorithm trained to talk dirty.
OnlyFans relies on selling an illusion of intimacy, and when that illusion breaks, fans may feel cheated or even emotionally violated (they opened up to a bot about their fantasies!). Yet the practice continues, because it works – most fans either don’t find out or don’t care as long as the fantasy is maintained. The company officially distances itself (“creators are responsible for their own content and teams”), thus washing its hands of the ethical quagmire.
To combat some abuses, OnlyFans has implemented measures like content moderation filters and banning certain terms (for example, trying to block offers of escorting or off-site transactions). The platform claims to employ teams that scan for bot accounts or spammy behavior and says it routinely bans accounts that violate policies. However, these enforcement efforts are not transparent, and critics say OnlyFans has been slow to crack down on fake engagement practices when those practices ultimately drive up revenue. After all, whether a tip comes from a genuine fan or from a bot controlled by an agency, OnlyFans still takes its 20% cut. This perverse incentive means the platform has little financial motivation to police tactics that increase spending, unless they cause PR or legal issues.
Regulatory & Legal Hurdles: Scrutiny Over Sex Work and Safety
As OnlyFans has grown into a multibillion-dollar enterprise, it has drawn increasing attention from regulators, lawmakers, and law enforcement on both sides of the Atlantic. The platform sits at the tricky intersection of technology, finance, and sexually explicit content – an area many governments are still figuring out how to regulate. Key concerns include child safety, sex trafficking, obscenity law compliance, and financial transparency. OnlyFans, for its part, insists it’s a law-abiding platform for consensual adult content, and it has taken some steps to appease regulators. But that hasn’t shielded it from investigations and proposed crackdowns.
Child protection and age verification. Perhaps the most urgent issue has been ensuring that minors do not use OnlyFans, either as consumers or creators. In theory, OnlyFans has a strict 18+ policy, requiring creators to submit government IDs and selfies for age verification. Yet multiple exposés have revealed lapses in these systems. A 17-year-old successfully registered as an OnlyFans creator using her 26-year-old sister’s passport, bypassing the platform’s verification measures. The system failed to detect the obvious age difference in the photos. In another case, a 14-year-old girl in the UK used her grandmother’s ID and bank info to create an account and sell explicit videos; OnlyFans only caught on when police intervened. Even after tightening verification, the platform’s “new, exceptionally effective” checks were still imperfect.
These revelations spurred regulators into action. The UK’s media regulator Ofcom launched a formal investigation into whether OnlyFans was doing enough to keep under-18s off the platform. Ofcom demanded detailed information on OnlyFans’ age-check technology, particularly its use of AI face estimation to verify user ages. The probe culminated in March 2025 with Ofcom fining Fenix International £1.05 million for providing misleading information about its age verification measures.
OnlyFans had told regulators that its AI would flag any user appearing under age 23 for further manual checks – but in reality, the threshold was set to 20, a significant discrepancy.
Ofcom blasted the company for not being fully transparent, noting that accurate information is “fundamental” for the regulator to ensure public safety. OnlyFans ultimately raised its AI age-check threshold to 21 and welcomed the closure of Ofcom’s underage access investigation, emphasizing its commitment to keep minors out. Still, the fine was a stark warning that regulators are watching closely, and it marked the first major penalty against OnlyFans in its home country.
Beyond the UK, lawmakers elsewhere are also grappling with OnlyFans’ model. In the United States, there is no federal regulator for social media akin to Ofcom, but Congress and state legislatures have shown interest. The broader push to hold platforms accountable for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and trafficking (seen in laws like FOSTA/SESTA of 2018) indirectly pressures sites like OnlyFans. In late 2021, when OnlyFans briefly announced a ban on explicit content, the company cited bank pressure stemming from child protection concerns stirred up by campaigners and media reports. Although that ban was reversed, OnlyFans knows it sits in a precarious spot: credit card networks will not tolerate any incidence of underage content or sex trafficking on the platform. Visa and Mastercard infamously cut off Pornhub in 2020 over allegations of CSAM on that site. OnlyFans narrowly avoided a similar fate, but it remains vigilant – likely one reason it instituted the ID verification requirement in the first place and moderates content for obvious red flags.
Payment processing and banking issues. Even when content is legal, financial institutions have their own risk appetites. OnlyFans has had to switch and juggle payment processors over time, as some banks view adult businesses as high-risk or reputationally damaging. It relies heavily on intermediaries like Stripe and CCBill for credit card processing. Any abrupt policy change by those firms (due to pressure from regulators or advocacy groups) could hobble OnlyFans’ ability to pay creators. There’s also the issue of chargebacks and fraud. OnlyFans experiences chargeback rates 3–5× higher than typical e-commerce – likely due to subscribers disputing charges (perhaps after realizing how much they spent in a late-night frenzy). In 2022, the platform reportedly had $21 million in refunds due to chargebacks. High chargebacks not only cost money but can get a merchant blacklisted by Visa or Mastercard if above certain thresholds. So far, OnlyFans appears to manage this, but it’s a metric regulators and payment partners keep an eye on as a sign of potential exploitation or user dissatisfaction.
Sex trafficking and content moderation. OnlyFans has faced questions about how it ensures that all performers are consenting adults and not victims of coercion. The platform’s policy requires every person appearing in content to submit identification (“Model Release” documentation) and be a registered creator on the site. This is intended to prevent situations like a creator uploading videos of someone else (e.g. secretly filmed or an underage partner). However, journalists found instances where under-18 partners did appear in creators’ videos. One example was a 17-year-old boy who was featured in his 18-year-old girlfriend’s explicit OnlyFans content; he got sucked into making videos and even bragged about the money. This violated OnlyFans policy, but it apparently went on for some time before being caught. The risk of trafficking or coercion also looms – pimps or abusive partners could force someone to run an OnlyFans and take their earnings.
Law enforcement has investigated isolated cases of trafficking on the platform, though it doesn’t appear to be widespread compared to other sites. Still, U.S. senators have raised the issue. In 2022, a group of lawmakers wrote to the Department of Justice urging investigation into OnlyFans (and similar sites) for potential child exploitation and trafficking facilitation, citing investigative reports. OnlyFans responded by highlighting its moderation and saying it has a zero tolerance for such content. The company claims it employs over 200 content moderators who review posts, and that it uses automated scanning for known CSAM hashes (through databases like PhotoDNA/GIFCT). Indeed, its participation in the GIFCT (terrorist content) database for moderation is what indirectly led to the Meta blacklisting scandal – showing the overlapping of moderation systems.
Legislative efforts. Several jurisdictions have either passed or proposed laws that touch OnlyFans. For instance, in the U.K., the new Online Safety Act (passed in 2023) imposes strict duties on platforms hosting pornographic content to verify user ages and swiftly remove illegal material, under threat of heavy fines. OnlyFans will fall under its scope and thus faces ongoing compliance audits by Ofcom. In the EU, the Digital Services Act (DSA) likewise requires more robust content moderation and transparency from large platforms, which could mean OnlyFans will have to publish data on its content removals, risk assessments, and algorithmic systems for scrutiny. In the U.S., states like Louisiana and Utah have enacted laws mandating porn websites implement age verification checks for users (e.g. requiring ID upload or a special digital card to view adult content). OnlyFans, being a login-based service with payments, arguably already verifies users via credit card age, but it might yet have to integrate more stringent checks in certain states or risk being geoblocked there.
Lawsuits and legal scrutiny. Aside from the aforementioned FanCentro lawsuit and the ex-employee suits against agencies, OnlyFans has occasionally been in court for other matters. One lawsuit in 2021 (settled quietly) involved a group of creators suing OnlyFans over a data breach – an incident where a leaked database of creator earnings and personal details circulated online. Another area of legal friction is taxation and financial reporting. Authorities want to ensure OnlyFans (and its top earners) properly report income. In 2022, for example, the IRS and UK HMRC both ramped up efforts to catch OnlyFans creators evading taxes, since some erroneously think platform earnings aren’t easily traceable. (In reality, Fenix International’s payouts leave a clear paper trail.)
Meanwhile, some politicians have zeroed in on OnlyFans in morality-driven campaigns. In the UK, a member of parliament in 2021 called for banning “upload-at-home” porn platforms outright, citing OnlyFans and claiming they could not be adequately policed for abuse. In the US, right-leaning advocacy groups have increasingly lumped OnlyFans into their crusades against what they term “online obscenity,” even pressuring banks to cut ties. OnlyFans navigates these waters by hiring compliance experts and emphasizing success stories of independent creators, trying to show it’s not a den of illicit activity. To its credit, OnlyFans has taken some safety steps beyond age checks: it bans keywords that suggest illegal content, it allows creators to geo-block certain countries (helpful if someone fears persecution or just nosy neighbors), and it has a team that works with law enforcement when needed. After the BBC’s underage report, OnlyFans said it updated its verification to add “additional ID checks to further reduce the chance” of minors slipping through. Of course, as the Ofcom fine showed, talk is cheap unless backed by real rigor.
The bottom line: OnlyFans finds itself under a microscope, expected to perform content moderation and compliance far beyond what a typical tech startup its size would. It must appease regulators who worry about exploitation, while also ensuring the platform isn’t choked by over-regulation (which could drive creators and users to riskier, unregulated sites). The outcome of the ongoing sale talks may well hinge on these regulatory trajectories. An investor paying $8 billion will want assurance that OnlyFans won’t be legislated or litigated out of business. In many ways, OnlyFans is a test case for how society and governments handle the mainstreaming of online sex work. Its ability to continue thriving will depend on convincing authorities that it can be a safe, law-abiding outlet for adult entertainment – without losing the very edge (explicit content freely posted by amateurs) that made it so profitable. The coming years will be a balancing act between growth and compliance, freedom and responsibility. And as skeptical--perhaps disturbed--analysts might warn, any misstep on the regulatory front could pose an existential risk to this adult empire built on subscriptions.
Conclusion
In just a few years, OnlyFans has upended the adult industry and the creator economy at large. It melded the allure of X-rated content with the subscription model of the digital age, yielding a venture so profitable that it’s now courting multi-billion dollar bids. Yet, behind the glossy valuations lies a more complicated story – one of extremes and excesses. Financially, OnlyFans is a unicorn, but it earns its horn by exploiting the oldest human obsession in a new wrapper. Socially, it has provided livelihood and liberation for some, even as it arguably fuels a system of digital serfdom for many others, who churn out content for a pittance in hopes of striking it rich. The platform has normalized a form of sexual commodification among young, tech-savvy generations, while repackaging it as “creator-fan engagement.” And in doing so, it has exposed fault lines – in our laws, in our social norms, in our psyches – that are still being understood.
This investigative overview reveals a company of contrasts. OnlyFans is at once wildly successful and deeply controversial. Its business model is both brilliantly innovative and fundamentally unseemly, depending on who you ask. It lives openly at society’s margins (pornography) while raking in mainstream profits. It empowers individuals to be their own bosses, yet leaves many feeling exploited by faceless subscribers or manipulative middlemen. It preaches safety and compliance, yet has had to fend off lawsuits alleging misdeeds from blacklisting competitors to letting minors slip through. In short, OnlyFans embodies the perpetual tension between profit and principle.
As Fenix International seeks an $8 billion exit, potential buyers must reckon not just with OnlyFans’ growth metrics, but with its baggage: reputational risks, regulatory unknowns, and an ecosystem riddled with misconduct. The question hanging in the air is whether OnlyFans’ success represents a sustainable new paradigm for adult entertainment – one that can be cleaned up and accepted – or whether it’s a bubble inflated by lockdown loneliness and easy credit card money, destined to deflate under scrutiny. Regardless of the outcome, the impact of OnlyFans on society is already profound. It has challenged how we think about sex work – dragging it out of the backrooms of the internet into the harsh light of Twitter and TikTok feeds. It has forced conversations about digital consent, the value of intimacy, and the price of fame in the influencer era.
In the end, the OnlyFans saga is more than a business story; it’s a cultural reckoning. It asks how far we’re willing to let capitalism and technology invade the most intimate corners of our lives, and who bears the cost when they do. For now, the house that porn built shows no signs of slowing, even as storm clouds gather on the horizon. OnlyFans thrives in a gray zone – legally, morally, emotionally – and perhaps its greatest trick is making that gray zone seem like just another entrepreneurial frontier. But as this exposé has shown, lurking beneath the fanfare of fortunes and fandom are the darker truths of an economy that runs on personal flesh and public fantasy. And those truths demand that we keep a critical eye on the empire of OnlyFans and its replicas (Passes, etc.), even as millions click “Subscribe” in search of a private connection that, in all likelihood, was never there to begin with.
Sources: Financial data and user statistics are drawn from OnlyFans’ UK regulatory filings and company reports. Reporting by major outlets detailed OnlyFans’ profits, dividend payouts, and Radvinsky’s ownership. Investigations provided insight into Radvinsky’s background and controversial business tactics. Creator economy figures (average earnings, top 1% disparities) come from analyses of OnlyFans internal data. Testimony about ghostwriting and agency abuses were reported by multiple media sources. Details on AI chatbot usage were covered by tech journalism. Regulatory actions and legal cases were sourced from official statements and filings. All citations are provided in-line for verification.
Complete list below:
BBC. (2021, May 28). The children selling explicit videos on OnlyFans. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983
BBC. (2022, January 18). OnlyFans accused of conspiring to blacklist rivals. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60029508
BBC. (2023, August 27). OnlyFans: Who is Leonid Radvinsky, the elusive owner of a porn empire? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66615008
Business Insider. (2023, August). OnlyFans’ reclusive owner made $338 million last year. https://www.businessinsider.com/onlyfans-reclusive-owner-made-338-million-last-year-2023-8
Business Insider. (2023, September). I regret doing OnlyFans and would never do it again. https://www.businessinsider.com/downsides-and-regrets-of-doing-onlyfans-2023-9
CNBC. (2021, August 24). OnlyFans CEO explains why the site banned porn. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/onlyfans-ceo-explains-why-the-site-banned-porn.html
CreatorBoost. (n.d.). AI chatbot for creators to chat with their fans. https://creatorboost.app/
Forensic News. (n.d.). AdminLeo: OnlyFans owner’s dubious financial history. https://forensicnews.net/adminleo-onlyfans-owners-dubious-financial-history/
Forbes. (2021, June 16). The shady, secret history of OnlyFans' billionaire owner. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/06/16/the-shady-secret-history-of-onlyfans-billionaire-owner/
Goodreturns. (n.d.). Leonid Radvinsky: Net worth & biography. https://www.goodreturns.in/leonid-radvinsky-net-worth-and-biography-blnr2379.html
Guardian. (2023, August 24). OnlyFans owner pays himself $1.3m a day from UK-based adult content site. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/24/onlyfans-owner-leonid-radvinsky-pays-himself-338m-in-dividends
Guardian. (2025, March 27). OnlyFans fined £1m over inaccurate information on age checks. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/27/onlyfans-ofcom-fine-age-checks-inaccurate-information
KGNS. (2021, February 26). GRAPHIC: Catholic school AD resigns after kids expelled for mother’s internet modeling. https://www.kgns.tv/2021/02/26/graphic-catholic-school-ad-resigns-after-kids-expelled-for-mothers-internet-modeling/
LADbible. (2025, February 18). Astonishing reality of how much OnlyFans creators really make on average. https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/adult-creator-average-earnings-revealed-585171-20250218
Ofcom. (n.d.). Ofcom investigates OnlyFans’ age verification measures. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/ofcom-investigates-onlyfans-age-verification-measures
OnlyFans. (2024, September). Official revenue, net profit, creator and subscriber data – updated. https://www.upmarket.co/blog/onlyfans-official-revenue-net-profit-creator-and-subscriber-data-updated-september-2024/
Psychology Today. (2023, April). 3 mental health consequences of OnlyFans stardom. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/social-instincts/202304/3-mental-health-consequences-of-onlyfans-stardom
Reuters. (2025, May 22). OnlyFans owner in talks to sell to investor group at about $8 billion value. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/onlyfans-owner-talks-sell-investor-group-about-8-billion-value-sources-say-2025-05-22/
Reuters. (2025, March 27). UK watchdog fines OnlyFans $1.4 million over age-check disclosure failures. https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-watchdog-fines-onlyfans-operator-14-million-over-age-disclosure-failures-2025-03-27/
Signs of the Times. (2021, March). The dark side of OnlyFans. https://signsmag.com/2021/03/the-dark-side-of-onlyfans/
SuperCreator. (n.d.). How OnlyFans affects mental fitness: Strategies for creators. https://www.supercreator.app/guides/onlyfans-mental-health
TechFundingNews. (2024, May). OnlyFans set for $8B exit, pushing creator economy’s limits. https://techfundingnews.com/onlyfans-set-for-8b-exit-pushing-creator-economys-limits/
The Verge. (2021, December 20). OnlyFans management firm accused of having employees talk to fans as influencers. https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/20/22846456/onlyfans-management-creators-ghostwriting-catfishing-unruly-agency
VICE. (n.d.). OnlyFans mom banned from volunteering at kids’ school after losing lawsuit. https://www.vice.com/en/article/onlyfans-mom-banned-from-volunteering-at-kids-school-after-losing-lawsuit/
VICE. (n.d.). OnlyFans models are using AI chatbots to talk dirty for them. https://www.vice.com/en/article/onlyfans-models-are-usuing-ai-chatbots-to-talk-dirty-for-them/
VICE. (n.d.). Think you’re messaging an OnlyFans star? You’re talking to…. https://www.vice.com/en/article/onlyfans-management-agency-chatters/
Yahoo Entertainment. (n.d.). Mom who makes $150K a month from OnlyFans says Catholic school expelled her kids. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mom-makes-150k-month-onlyfans-023257069.html
OnlyMonster. (n.d.). OnlyFans management tools, AI assistant, and all in one. https://onlymonster.ai/
AI Influencer Company. (n.d.). AI OnlyFans creator – Make money with AI generated models. https://aiinfluencercompany.com/ai-onlyfans-model-creation-service/
Commentaires