Ace

ACE.com’s August 31, 2026 newsletter invited our account to earn up to 100 SC for each referred friend. The email is original evidence of the offer we received. It is not evidence that we earned a referral reward, that another player met the conditions, or that the full amount follows from a registration alone.

The official referral help article, checked September 8, supplies the missing milestones. It describes an initial award after a verified new customer makes purchases over $100, followed by a second award after additional purchases worth $1,400 or more.

Check the milestone before valuing the referral

Under the help article’s additional-purchase wording, the two stages imply more than $1,500 of qualifying purchases together. The conflicting FAQ prevents us from presenting that as a settled universal trigger. The maximum referral reward should remain attached to both the spending conditions and that unresolved wording.

The two reward stages change the meaning of up to

The help article divides the SC allocation between the initial and later purchase stages. The maximum is therefore conditional on substantially more than opening an account. We would not present the newsletter’s full headline as a no-purchase reward to the referrer.

There is a detail to clarify in the indexed version of the public referral page inspected September 8: its main steps describe additional purchases at the second stage, while its FAQ refers to total qualifying purchases reaching the later threshold. Direct access during our check redirected to login. Those descriptions are not identical, and we cannot choose the more favorable reading or promise exactly when the second award will appear.

Neither the newsletter nor those pages demonstrates our own successful referral test. The distinction is especially important for recommendations involving someone else’s spending. A conditional reward is not a reason to encourage a friend to make purchases they otherwise would not make.

Our recorded purchase is a different test

The first-hand table documents an offer we actually bought, with Gold Coins, SC and cost recorded separately. It provides evidence of that historical package. It does not test the referral promotion, cashout delivery, or the future value of loyalty rewards.

Our June 15 tester note also describes the daily wheel and a VIP system that seemed easy to progress through but gave limited rewards in that test. That is an account-level impression from a dated observation. We have not turned it into a measured return for every VIP tier.

A winner story is not our payment evidence

The same August newsletter includes an operator-selected winner story. We have not added that third party’s advertised result to our own payout history. A promotional balance claim also does not establish that a prize was delivered.

The Terms of Service incorporate promotion-specific rules and allow offers to change. Our review therefore separates the newsletter received in August, the current published referral conditions, and the older transactions we personally recorded.

That gives a reader three concrete checks: whether the friend meets the new-customer and verification conditions, which purchase milestone determines the reward, and whether BonusBandit has tested that particular outcome. Here, the purchase and wheel have historical first-hand evidence; the full referral reward and a completed payout do not.

This is information, not financial or legal advice. Check current rules and eligibility; consult an appropriate professional about personal legal or tax matters.