A fresh controversy has started around Kick streamer Braden “Clavicular,” after another creator publicly spoke about a contract linked to him. On March 21, 2026, screenshots shared on X by user @Awk20000 showed what was described as an alleged agreement connected to Clavicular. The document was originally posted by ASU Fraternity Leader Varis, who said the contract belonged to a girl he knows from his law class.The document quickly caught attention because of its terms. It appeared to be a three-year management deal, where a manager would control parts of a creator’s work and take a share of earnings. Varis later reviewed the contract live on stream, explaining what he saw and why it raised concerns for him and others in the content space.
ASU Frat Leader Varis explains why Braden “Clavicular” contract terms felt one-sided
During his livestream, Varis read parts of the contract and reacted in real time. One section mentioned that the manager would get administrative or view-only access to all of the creator’s social media and content accounts. After reading that, Varis said, “So, this person wants my social media account that I worked on for about a year and a half, and take a certain percentage of every sponsorship I got on my own.”He continued by pointing out that the deal did not clearly show what the creator would receive in return. He said, “It seems like this contract does not really provide anything to me except taking a percentage of what I make. It seems like a slave contract, what do you think, chat?”Another clause explained payment terms. It stated, “As compensation for Manager’s services hereunder, Talent shall pay to Manager a commission equal to twenty percent (20%) of Talent’s Gross Revenues.” What surprised many viewers was that the 20% cut could continue even after the contract period ended. Reacting to this, Varis said, “Even after the term is over, we are keeping 20% of everything I make? Chat, what is this?”Varis also shared that he and a friend were asked to sign a similar contract on March 20 in Miami before collaborating with Clavicular. He explained that they refused because the terms felt too strong. He said, “Maybe he said something along the lines of ‘let us just get to it,’ and tried to get us to sign this contract. We were obviously hesitant. It felt like a contract was being pushed on us.”Earlier, Clavicular had responded to criticism by saying these agreements were standard NDAs used by public figures. However, after these details came out, the discussion has shifted, with many now questioning how such contracts are being used in streaming collaborations.
