Binary Structures 101:
Why would any program with a real product or service encourage its members to stack accounts if the money paid to account holders comes from the purchases of those real goods or services? Or, if the business was really interested in a broad customer base? Well, that's what happening in your local binary-structured program.
But the reality is that stacked accounts impede the growth of the business for both the stacker and the team because no member could adequately build several accounts proportionately enough so as to not incur a trade off on the overall value of the team build from having multiple accounts under himself/herself. If binary structures support team volume, then multiple accounts hurt the individual who has the multiple accounts and they hurt the team as well because those multiple accounts are bringing down the overall proportionate return value which should be attributable to each account from those accounts individually working towards increasing volume for the team.
Stacked accounts in binaries hurt the stacker. Not only does the money used to stack the account represent divided money which came from the account holder's pockets, but the only way to gain even somewhat of an honest return on those stacked accounts is by ensuring that each account is worked separately towards maximization.
That means that you'd have to build each account in the same manner as though you were only building one account to generate in each of those accounts the kind of volume that the one account would otherwise generate if the account holder only was working one account.
By working one account of an honest binary-structured program (oxymoron because binaries by design can't be honest) then the volume generated would go towards the benefit of the whole team. But by stacking accounts then recruiting more members under the last one of his/her stacked accounts, the stacker is shorting his whole team of the volume which should be generated on each account respectively as if the accounts weren't stacked.
To be sure, it is nearly impossible to generate enough volume to support the stacking because each account already inherently has its own potential relative value of volume which should be generated from within the account itself. In other words, one person who has 3 accounts should be performing at the intense volume of 3 individual people with 1 account each.
Think about it: the premise of the "volume" is one of network implications, meaning that it would appear as though the team is compensated for being a strong team. But team volume is reduced by each member who has multiple accounts because those additional accounts have legs which were not adequately recruited on.
No person can have multiple accounts in a binary in a manner that justifies the additional accounts because each additional account will lag in recruitment and thus volume generated.
This is a statement of relative value. The relative value of individual stacked accounts does not measure up to the possible relative value of nonstacked individual accounts. Think about it like this: When members don't stack accounts but are good at recruiting then the recruiting benefits the whole team. But the opposite occurs when members can't recruit but stack their accounts because then they are cheating those other people under the stacked account out of volume- the volume that would've been generated had the binary accounts not been stacked in the first place.
Thus, the appearance of gained commissions from having stacked accounts in binary structures is an illusion. Think about it: If the purpose of the binary is to reward on volume from real sales then the only way to maximize the potential of a binary structure is by having only one account and having your recruitment scheme adhere to the volume focus of the binary.
The relative return factors associated with stacked accounts mean that when most of these marketers report how much they've made or is making, what they are not saying is that they aren't even close to the possibilities of a stacked account because most marketers can't recruit enough to actually build several legs at once towards maximization. And what those marketers are showing by showcasing the money they've supposedly made so far is a reflection of their having gained commissions from themselves having bought positions under themselves. In that sense, stacking amounts to spending your own money just to get a referral commission from yourself.
Now where they do that at? Oh, yeah, now I remember- only in binary-structured programs, that's where.#Iajs
